SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für Germany

Germany

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

Career model (Quensel)

Quensel’s career model describes crime as a process that can evolve from a small insignificant offence to a serious criminal career due to the failed interaction between the individual and the environment (including judicial sanctioning).

Main proponent

Stephan Quensel

Theory

With his model, Quensel wants to combine the etiological and penological perspective, while at the same time not viewing criminality as the result of a single event, but as a multi-phase process. As an example, he draws on juvenile delinquency, which, according to Quensel, develops over several years, and which is the result of failed interaction between the juvenile and his environment (including the state sanction apparatus).

Quensel’s approach, therefore also called the “vicious circle model”, proceeds as follows:

In the first phase, a mostly small, first offence is committed in order to solve a certain, mostly small, problem: Lack of recognition in the peer group, school failures, etc. Now the crime can either turn out positively, i.e. succeed, then the problem has been solved in some way and serves as reinforcement for possible future delinquency. Or it cannot succeed, then the young person can either be lucky and not caught, or he can be unlucky and officially punished.

If the latter is the case, we are in the second phase of Quensel’s career model: the young person has to serve detention, he is reprimanded or perhaps even has to be placed under juvenile detention.

In the following third phase, it becomes increasingly difficult for the young person to solve his actual problem, as it has been amplified by the sanction and the mere presentation in public as a deviant. The delinquent experiences social rejection, feels that punishment is unjust, and finally finds confirmation and recognition in other dissenters.

This often leads to other deviant action, which then initiates the fourth phase of the model. Society and the judiciary recognize the young person as a repeat offender; in their view, the sanction has apparently not worked and must be intensified. This leads to serious judicial reactions and an increase in social rejection.

A subsequent process of building up further offences and increasingly harsh punishments then leads the young person into the fifth phase, in which, after Quensel, he is now labelled as a delinquent and treated accordingly: He loses his apprenticeship, is not allowed to obtain a driving licence or is otherwise restricted in his freedom of action. Accordingly, he begins to incorporate the definition of the deviator into his own self-image.

In the sixth phase, the delinquent becomes an outsider, only the deviant group still offers social contact. Certain criminal techniques are internalized, the role of the delinquent is fully accepted and one’s own actions are now considered normal and correct.

In the seventh phase, the criminal finally ends up in a prison that aggravates or confirms both his problems and his self-image, as well as his public image. The juvenile now identifies completely with his delinquent role.

The “vicious circle” comes to an end in an eighth phase: after release from prison, the labelling of the now officially convicted person is tightened by the social environment. Old employers, friends and possibly also family members turn away, the proximity to other previous convicts is looked for. If delinquency occurs again, the previous conviction aggravates the sentence.

Karrieremodell von Quensel zur Erklärung von Kriminalitätsbelastung

Implication for criminal policy

Quensel’s career model focuses primarily on problematizing the societal reaction to criminal behavior (and is thus close to the labelling approach). What is crucial here is that delinquency and its sanctioning are seen as representative of other underlying conflicts and problems (e.g. conflicts with parents, teachers, friends or colleagues).

Particularly critical is the intervention of the judiciary and the resulting selective restriction of the punished person’s actions. The delinquent, instead of being constructively taken care of, is pushed into social isolation; he is stigmatized and thus learns defense and behavioral techniques that promote his criminal career. In doing so, Quensel specifically addresses the disproportion between the criminal and the state institutions. The public and bureaucratic judicial apparatus is completely alien to the former. He does not understand it and distrusts it. Similarly, the members of this apparatus do not know and mistrust the youth world. Official bodies, however, are forced to play their role as judges, social workers, etc., which is alien to the delinquent and which, in the final analysis, must not show solidarity with the delinquent. In this way, rapprochement and mutual understanding can hardly take place. Moreover, both sides have had bad experiences with each other over a longer period of time and are therefore not prepared to step out of their own world and their own role.

Quensel therefore calls for more sociological fantasy in relation to the development of criminal careers (caused by social grievances and a lack of support for young people) and more social psychological influence during and at the end of the phase model (prevention of the process of building up, countermeasures to take on the delinquent role model).

Critical appreciation & relevance

Quensel’s career model is to be appreciated as a differentiated example of Lemert and Becker’s approach of the forcing effect of judicial reactions, taking into account the causes of primary deviance. It is described here in great detail and comprehensibly how a minor offence can lead to a genuine criminal career through the reaction of the environment and the state alone.

If one considers the specific age distribution in criminal activities, according to which almost all juveniles become deviant at some point, the model is still topical from today’s point of view, as it emphasises the importance of an independent juvenile criminal law and its conceptualisation, which is more geared to education and problem solving.

It is questionable, however, whether the cause of the first deviating action is in fact always only an attempt to solve the problem.

In addition, in Quensel’s model, the young person, after his unique delinquency, appears too much as a pure victim and plaything of justice or social rejection. As in Henner Hess’ career model, however, it should be noted that the delinquent always has the opportunity to break out of his negative development and consciously choose an alternative to the path described here.

Literature

Primärliteratur

  • Quensel, Stephan (1970): Wie wird man kriminell? In: Kritische Justiz 1970, 377ff. Frankfurt am Main.

Career model (Hess)

According to German sociologist Henner Hess, the emergence and consolidation of criminal behaviour can be explained by careers. The actor glides processually, pushed through the outside world and situation, but ultimately individually chosen, into a delinquent role.

Main proponent

Henner Hess

Theory

Hess’ basic assumption regarding crime theories is that deviant behavior cannot be explained by a single hypothesis, but that a kind of filtering process, a career model, is needed to describe the development of delinquent behavior of individuals.

Hess thus considers both the characteristics of the acting person and the characteristics of the situation in which the acting person finds himself. He pays particular attention to the constant changes to which the person and the situation are subject and which always bring with them new possibilities or constraints for (deviant) behaviour. Ultimately, however, it is always the individual decisions of the actors that determine criminal or conformal behaviour at every point in the career. Hess’ career model goes through several phases, which he illustrates using the example of “prostitution” (Hess, 1978):

  1. Motivation for deviant action and situational aggravation
    First, according to Hess, an etiological explanation is needed for the motivation to act differently. In the case of prostitution, for example, anomie, subculture and learning theories could be considered, and situational aggravations in the form of sudden deterioration in the social or economic sphere could also be present.
  2. Willingness to act through weak social controls and overcoming norms
    In a second step, internalised norms must now be neutralised, which speak against the act for which the motivation exists, and thus internal controls must be loosened; at the same time, current social ties may be weakened, according to which less integrated persons would have to successfully pass through this phase of the model more often than persons who are kept on the path of conformity by important reference persons and institutions.
  3. Deviating action after individual decision with objective opportunity
    In addition, there must be objective possibilities for action: specific characteristics and knowledge of the individual, but also contacts and opportunities relevant to the deviating action. Finally, it is important to note in Hess’ model that although there may be a motivation to deviate and weak bonds and relaxed internal controls may also be present, an individual decision by the actor is still required to actually deviate or not.
  4. Secondary Deviance, Stigmatization, Role Taking and Subsumption
    If the processes just described have led to the deviant action itself, this will be continued if the outcome is successful. This is followed by attribution processes and stigmatizations by the outside world, but also by the person himself who has become delinquent. Certain expectations of others are satisfied by the person’s own assumption of the deviant role and thus a subsumption gradually comes about: the attribution and acceptance of a new, deviant identity.
    With Hess, the prostituting person is labelled as a “whore” or something similar and then approached with certain role expectations. These are answered by further prostitution and an identity as a prostitute is taken over.

Altogether Hess thus connects etiological theories such as those of Merton, Sutherland, Hirschi and others with the penological approaches of Becker and Lemert, but at the same time emphasizes the continuous, individual possibility of nevertheless being able to decide against the external and situational determinants and factors. Thus also the rational-classical paradigm of criminology has not been forgotten by Hess.

Implication for criminal policy

Due to the very comprehensive model, which takes into account all criminological paradigms, the criminal policy implication for Hess is very complex. In addition, it is difficult to determine, since Hess explicitly describes only the micro-perspective part of a general crime theory that he considers necessary. The latter was finally developed by Hess (together with Scheerer) under the name of Social Constructivist Crime Theory (Sozialkonstruktivistische Kriminalitätstheorie), into which Hess’ career model was integrated and from which the corresponding implications for criminal policy can be derived.

Critical appreciation & relevance

The career model of Hess certainly has its strength in the combination of different basic criminological paradigms: etiological theories are associated with parts of the labeling approach, and the individual’s freedom of will is addressed as well as his determination by external factors; while the latter context is reminiscent of David Matza’s postulate of a soft determinism, the attempt to combine etiological and penological theories seems to represent criminological new territory: Hess describes both the causes of criminal acts and the consequences of labeling and stigmatization.

Critically, however, one could claim that Hess’ model is merely a supplement to Lemert’s theory of secondary deviance to explain the primary deviation. The actual statement of the labeling approach that crime is only what people call crime is not really taken into account by Hess. Likewise, there are no social structural factors that could promote or prevent motivation and the willingness to delinquency.

Once again, reference is made to Hess’ and Scheerer’s social constructivist theory of crime, in which all these factors were taken into account.

Literature

  • Hess, Henner (1978): Sexualität und soziale Kontrolle: Beiträge zur Sexualkriminologie. Heidelberg.

Radical labelling approach (Sack)

[According to Fritz Sack, the term “labelling” is unnecessarily narrow. He therefore proposes the term “Marxist-interactionist”.]

According to Fritz Sack, crime is a pure attribution process. In this attribution process, a physical event is linked to a mental state. This physical event thus goes through a social career. This attribution process is the only cause that deviant behavior is seen as such at all.

For Sack, the power aspect, which decides on the labelling of certain actions, is also important. He therefore describes his approach as “Marxist”.

Main Proponent

Fritz Sack

Theory

Sack assumes that crime can be completely explained by ascription. His starting point is a ubiquity thesis according to which crime is a “normal” phenomenon that occurs in all social classes (see also: Durkheim). Thus the idea of a radical labeling approach differs from the statements of Howard S. Becker (“Outsiders“) and Edwin M. Lemert. Both Becker and Lemert assume that, in addition to attribution processes, there is an objective level of facts (referred to by Becker as “norm violation” and by Lemert as “primary deviance”).

According to Sack, it is purely a matter of definition which human behaviour is considered criminal. Every behaviour is first of all a physical event, which does not supply its own definition. To a crime we have such a physical event by going through a social career. The labelling of certain behaviours is highly selective. The lower classes are criminalized, while the rulers do not receive this label.

The law thus becomes an instrument of oppression and a “class justice” prevails. For Sack, these findings mean that the questions of the positivist school (e.g. Why does someone become a criminal?) become completely invalid.

Critical appreciation & relevance

The paradigm shift that Sack evoked with his approach can hardly be overestimated in his influence on German criminology. It should be noted here that Sack’s theory met with massive resistance in the 1960s. The written discussion with his critics reveals that a radicalisation can be assumed in the context of the discussion. In Sack’s writings it becomes clear that the discussion about the various paradigms is conducted on a thoroughly emotional level.

Sack accuses his critics, for example, of “…rational nicht ausweisbare Argumente geltend gemacht, die alltäglichen Spruchweisheiten und Allerweltsformel näher kommen als wissenschaftlichem Räsonieren.” (Sack, 1972: 4) [English translation: … not making rational arguments but rather using everyday wisdom and formulas instead of scientific reasoning.]

Sack’s thesis that attribution is the only cause of crime can certainly be qualified from today’s point of view. The radicality of his approach is the point to which most attacks on this theory relate. For example, Sack is accused of reversing roles and turning perpetrators into victims who themselves no longer have any role at all as active actors.

Literature