SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für Rational Choice

Rational Choice

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 (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.

Rational Choice

Rational crime theories, often referred to as neoclassical, are based firstly on the individual’s freedom of will and thus on his personal responsibility for his own actions. In this respect, they differ substantially from etiological theories, which speak of a determinism of the individual. Criminality is the result of a cost-benefit analysis of free will actors. Criminal behaviour is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs. Crime can be controlled by increasing the cost side (e.g. by threatening a harsh and immediate punishment).

Crime is the result of a cost-benefit analysis of autonomous actors. Criminal behaviour is rational if the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs. Crime can be controlled by increasing the cost side (e.g. by imposing a harsh and immediate punishment).

Secondly, rational theories are based on human rationality, which conceals a notion of crime that occurs only when the benefits of criminal action outweigh the costs. According to the rational choice approach, all human beings are equal and thus differ only in their actions. Criminals can therefore only be differentiated from non-criminals on the basis of the crime they have committed. Therefore, the rationally oriented, classical school was already described as crime oriented and not – as under etiological paradigm – as offender oriented. The main focus of rational theories is therefore on the situation. In summary, crime is the result of free and rational choices made by people in different situations.

Context

Historically rational theories date back to the origins of criminology. The so-called classical criminology of the 18th and early 19th centuries is described in most modern criminological textbooks as the beginning of criminological thought. The classical approach is a product of the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting the spiritualist and demonological explanatory patterns that prevailed in the Middle Ages, but following famous seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers of state and law such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. Here man appears as a rational and self-responsible being, who has a claim to a just and appropriate justice and punishment system. The representatives of the classical school vary greatly in literature depending on the recipient, since in this historical epoch the boundaries between criminal lawyer, criminal dogmatist, legal philosopher and criminologist are still very difficult. Cesare Beccaria can, however, be uniformly described as the central figure of the classical school; Howard, Bentham, Romilly, Feuerbach, Peer, Pufendorf and others can also be mentioned.

Since the emergence of positivist criminal anthropology and biology, classical ideas and approaches have increasingly been pushed into the background. However, the idea of the free, rational and autonomous human being finds its contemporary equivalent in the original economic theory of rational choice theory, which has long since found its way into sociology and criminology. Representatives of so-called deterrence theories, however, use precisely those axioms of rational theories – the criminal acts out of free will and rationally weighing up the costs and benefits – for their approaches to criminal policy, and the so-called “Routine Activity Theory” is also situation- and crime oriented. In summary, it can be said that the rational-situational approach can be attributed great importance in the history of criminology, and still is frequently mentioned today, although the positivist search for the causes of crime has dominated the criminal sciences for many years. In addition, there are authors who describe Beccaria as a precursor of the labeling approach, since both classical and critical criminology reject the purely etiological view and emphasize the equality of all people.

Finally, another group of neoclassical theories should be mentioned: In literature, terms such as “neoclassicism” or “neoclassicism” are mostly used as generic terms for the rational theories mentioned above (rational choice, deterrence, routine activity). From time to time, however, there is also reference to an independent neoclassical school of the nineteenth century, which, based on the assumption of human free will, began to take into account additional (e.g. external) factors that could influence individual decisions. The current criminal law can be seen as the result of these neoclassical theories: The conviction is against free and rational thinking people, who can lose a part of their autonomy from internal and external influences.