Rational Choice Theory and Deterrence Theory

Rational Choice Theory Deterrence Theory Prisoners Dilemma

Personal Choice?

Personal choice?

Personal choice?

Personal choice?

Personal choice

In seeking an answer to the question, "Why do people engage in deviant and/or criminal acts?", many researchers have begun to focus on the element of personal choice An understanding of personal choice is commonly based in a conception of rationality or rational choice These conceptions are rooted in the analysis of human behavior developed by the early classical theorists, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

The central points of this theory are:

(1) The human being is a rational actor (2) Rationality involves an end/means calculation (3) People (freely) choose all behaviors, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations (4) The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure

Should I commit a robbery? (cost/benefit analysis)

Costs Risk (victim might have a weapon) Arrest Public humiliation Incarceration Abusive treatment in prison Be away from family for uncertain time

Benefits Fast cash Easy to do Masculinity Status Can buy drugs/alcohol Excitement and thrill Public/Media attention

Main Assumptions of Rational Choice Theory

Individuals are seen as motivated by the wants or goals that express their 'preferences They act on the basis of the information that they have about the conditions under which they are acting Rational choice theories hold that individuals must anticipate the outcomes of alternative courses of action and calculate that which will be best for them Rational individuals choose the alternative that is likely to give them the greatest satisfaction

The model
Steal Money

Earn

Actor
Illegal Business

Prison

DEBT

Borrow

Limited Rationality

Accurate assessment of situation and anticipation of all possible outcomes is impossible Limited rationality refers to the best possible decision under the circumstance Burglar cannot calculate the value of property he/she expects to take away Most of them do not know the extent of the punishment

Deterrence Theory

Rational choice theorists recognize that the threat of punishment may discourage people from illegal behavior That is where deterrence theory comes from.

Deterrence Theorys assumption

Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws

Deterrence Theory

If legal penalties are certain, severe, and swift crime will be deterred Certainty of punishment is defined as the ration between the number of admissions to the state prisons for a given crime and the number of those crimes known to the police

Deterrence Theory

Severity is defined as the mean number of months served by all persons convicted of a given crime who were in prison for that year

General Deterrence

General deterrence theory focuses on reducing the probability of deviance in the general population Norms and laws are designed to produce and maintain the image that "negative" and disruptive behaviors will receive attention and punishment Examples of control activities reflecting the concerns of this concept include: Drunk-driving crackdowns, publication and highly visible notices of laws and policies Signs like Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law Death penalty

Specific Deterrence

General deterrence strategies focus preventing individuals from engaging in crime Specific deterrence focuses on punishing known deviants in order to prevent them from ever again violating the specific norms they have broken Examples: shock sentencing, corporal punishment, mandatory arrests for certain behaviors (domestic violence), etc.

Research on Deterrence Theory

Sherman (1990) asked people about their perception of the risks of being punished for specific offenses and about whether they have actually committed those offenses Findings: Consistent association b/w offending and the perception of the certainty, but no association b/w offending and the perception of severity

Research

Tunnell (1992) found that repeat property offenders were unable to make reasonable assessment of the risk of arrest, did little planning for crime, and were uninformed about the legal penalties in the state where their crimes were committed

Critique of Shermans Study

Direction of causation is unclear Either increased perception of risk leads to reduced criminal behavior or engaging into criminal behavior lead to a decreased perception of risk Nagin (1990) argues that repeat offenders are less afraid of imprisonment

Research on Deterrence Theory

The deterrence hypothesis suggests that states with the death penalty should have lower homicide rate Tittle (1992): states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it The reason is that death penalty in implemented in those states where the murder rate is higher (unclear causation)

Death Penalty

Bonner, Fessenden (2000) found that death penalty actually increases homicides Death Penalty has a brutalization effect that tends to devalue human life and thereby increase homicide

Prisoners Dilemma

Two prisoners committed a crime together They are both under arrest and unable to communicate with each other In order to force a confession, the authorities offer each prisoner separately, the following deal:

Prisoners Dilemma
PRISONER B
Confess
5 years

Doesnt confess
9 years

Confess
5 years Total -10 Goes free Total -9

PRISONER A
Doesnt confess

Goes free Total -9

2 years

9 years

2 years

Total -4

Paradox of the Prisoners Dilemma

Both prisoners end up by defecting even though they both know that they would be better off cooperating Each of them thinks that non confessing is very risky If one confesses, he may strike lucky (goes free) or get 5 years, at worst.

Non-rational elements

Max Weber (1920) Traditional or habitual action (brushing teeth) Emotional or affectual action (altruism) Value-oriented action (morals)

Problems in Rational Choice

How it is possible to explain the co-operation of individuals in groups, associations, and other forms of joint action If individuals calculate the personal profit from each course of action, why should they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves?

Problems in Rational Choice

The problem of social norms Why people seem to accept and to follow norms of behaviour that lead them to act in altruistic ways or to feel a sense of obligation that overrides their self-interest