Chapter Outlines

Chapter 3: Contemporary Classical and Deterrence Research

Learning Objectives

Summary

This chapter examines explanations of criminal conduct that emphasize individuals' ability to make decisions based on the potential consequences of their behavior. The natural capability of human beings to make decisions based on expected costs and benefits was acknowledged during the Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. This understanding of human capability led to what is considered the first rational theory of criminal activity-namely, deterrence theory. Of any other perspective to date, deterrence theory has had the most profound impact on justice systems in our nation. Furthermore, it is easy to see examples in contemporary life of offenders engaging in such rational decision-making, and a number of variations of this theoretical model have been developed that focus on the reasoning processes of people considering criminal acts.
Such theories of human rationality stand in stark contrast to the theories perpetuated for most of human civilization, up to the Age of Enlightenment-theories that focused on religious or supernatural causes of crime. Additionally, the Classical School theories of crime are distinguished from the other theories we examine in future chapters by their emphasis on free will and rational decision-making, which modern theories of crime tend to ignore. Specifically, the theoretical perspectives discussed in this chapter all focus on the human ability to choose one's own behavior and destiny, whereas paradigms popular before the Enlightenment and in contemporary times tend to emphasize the influence of external factors on individual choice. Therefore, the Classical School is perhaps the paradigm best suited for analysis of what types of calculations go on in someone's head before committing a crime.
The aspects of Classical School theory presented in this chapter vary in many ways, most notably in what they propose as the primary constructs and processes by which individuals determine whether or not to commit a crime. For example, some Classical School theories emphasize only the potential negative consequences of criminal actions, whereas others focus on the possible benefits. Still others concentrate on the opportunities and circumstances that predispose one to engage in criminal activity. Regardless of their differences, all the theories examined in this chapter emphasize a common theme: individuals commit crimes because they identify certain situations and actions as beneficial due to a perceived lack of punishment and a perceived likelihood of profits, such as money or peer status. In other words, the potential offender weighs out the possible costs and pleasures of committing a given act and then behaves in a rational way based on the conclusions of that analysis.
The most important distinction of these Classical School theories, as opposed to those discussed in future chapters, is that they emphasize individual decision making regardless of any extraneous influences on a person's free will, such as the economy or bonding with society. Although many outside factors may influence an individual's ability to rationally consider offending situations-and many of the theories in this chapter deal with such influences- primary responsibility rests on the individual to take all influences into account when deciding whether to engage in criminal behavior. Given this emphasis on individual responsibility, it is not surprising that Classical School theories are used as the basis for U.S. policies on punishment for criminal activity. After all, in the conservative "get-tough" movement that has existed since the mid-1970s, the Classical School theories are highly compatible and consistent with such a perspective because they focus on individual responsibility. Thus, the Classical School still retains the highest influence in terms of policy and pragmatic punishment in the United States, as well as throughout the Western world.
As you will see, the Classical School theoretical paradigm was presented as early as the mid-1700s, and it is still the dominant model of offending behavior in criminal justice systems. The Classical School paradigm remains the most popular theoretical framework among U.S. legislators and society, and throughout the world. Although the Classical School theories have remained dominant in most Western societies, the scientific and academic circles have somewhat dismissed many of the claims of this perspective. For reasons we explore in this chapter, the assumptions and primary propositions of the Classical School theories have been neglected by most recent theoretical models of criminology, which is likely premature given the impact this perspective has had on understanding human nature, as well as its profound influence on most criminal justice systems, especially in the United States.
 

The first theory addressed in the chapter is the Rational Choice theory. Rational Choice theory is a perspective that criminologists adapted from economists who used it to explain a variety of individual decisions regarding a variety of behaviors. This framework emphasizes all important factors that go into a person's decision to engage, or not engage in a particular act. In terms of criminological research, the rational choice model emphasized both official/formal forms of deterrence, as well as the informal factors that influence individual decisions for criminal behavior. This represented a profound advance in the understanding of human behavior. Studies on rational choice such as those by Cornish and Clarke and Katz have shown that while official/formal sanctions tend to have some effect on individuals' decisions to commit crime, they almost always are relatively unimportant compared to extralegal/informal factors. Perhaps the most important finding of rational choice research was that the expected benefits, particularly the pleasure they would get from such offending, had one of the most significant effects on their decisions to offend. Many other conclusions have been made regarding the influence of extralegal/informal factors on criminal offending, but the ultimate conclusion that can be made is that these informal deterrent variables typically hold more influence on individual decision-making regarding deviant activity than the official/formal deterrent factors that were emphasized by traditional Classical School models of behavior. The second theory presented in the chapter is Routine Activities Theory. Routine Activities Theory is another contemporary form of the Classical School framework in the sense that it assumes a rational, decision-making offender. The general model of routine activities theory was originally presented by Cohen and Felson in 1979. This theoretical framework emphasized the presence of three factors that come together in time and place to create a high likelihood for crime/victimization. These three factors are: motivated offender(s), suitable target, and lack of guardianship. Regarding the first factor noted as being important for increasing the likelihood of criminal activity-motivated offender-the theory does not provide much insight. The strengths of the theory are in the elaboration on the other two aspects of a crime-prone environment: suitable targets and lack of guardianship. When these three factors converge, the likelihood of a crime being committed increases. Locations that have a high convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of guardianship are typically referred to as "hot spots." Another category of theory that is very strongly related to routine activities theory is that of the lifestyles perspective. This theory claims that individuals increase the probability to become victims (as well as offenders) due to the type of lifestyle they choose to engage in. There are three main policy implications related to the previously mentioned theories. The first is the policy of broken windows, which has many assumptions similar to those of routine activities and rational choice theories. The broken windows perspective emphasizes the need for police to "crack down" on more minor offenses to reduce more major crimes. Although many cities have claimed reductions in serious crimes by using this theory (such as New York and Los Angeles), the fact is that crime was reduced by the same amount across most cities during the same time. The second policy is the "three-strikes-you're-out". This policy assumes that offenders will make a rational choice not to commit future offenses because they could go to prison for life if they commit three. For deterrence to be effective the punishment must be swift, certain, and severe. Given the philosophy of Beccaria, this policy will probably not work because it is not certain or swift. In relation to specific deterrence, these types of policies work because offenders who are in prison for the rest of their lives cannot commit more crimes on the streets. When attempting to determine if such policies act as a general deterrent, there is no easy answer. One study from California shows that three-strike legislation reduced crime, but the remaining studies show either three-strikes laws have no effect on crime of that is actually increases crime. The final policy is strongly based in the rational choice model. Shaming has become increasingly used by a number of judges to deter offenders from recidivating. They have ordered everything from publicly posting pictures of men arrested for soliciting prostitutes to forcing offenders to walk down Main Streets of towns wearing signs that announce they committed a crime. Unfortunately, to date there have been virtually no empirical evaluations of the effectiveness of such shaming penalties, although studies of expected shaming for doing an act consistently shows a deterrent effect.

Chapter Outline