(these ideas are drawn from Goode, 4th-8th, 1994-2008 chapter 2 and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985. See the disclaimer))
The Evolution of Classical Theory:
Rational Choice, Deterrence, Incapacitation and Just Desert
In seeking to answer the question, "Why do people engage in deviant and/or criminal acts?", many researchers, as well as the general public, 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 behavior, 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, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that impose upon and constrain the rational choice of individual actors.
Owing to the perceived failure of rehabilitative technologies and the increase in the officially recorded crime rates during the 1970's and 1980's attention returned to an analysis of the criminal decision making process. Rational Choice Theory emerged.
"According to this view, law-violating behavior should be viewed as an event that occurs when an offender decides to risk violating the law after considering his or her own personal situation (need for money, personal values, learning experiences) and situational factors (how well a target is protected, how affluent the neighborhood is, how efficient the local police happen to be). Before choosing to commit a crime, the reasoning criminal evaluates the risk of apprehension, the seriousness of the expected punishment, the value of the criminal enterprise, and his or her immediate need for criminal gain." (Siegel, p.131, 1992)
This perspective shifts attention to the act of engaging in criminal or deviant activity. The issue becomes, what can be done to make the act of crime or deviance less attractive to the individual? How can crime or deviant behavior be prevented? "...crime prevention or at least crime reduction, may be achieved through policies that convince criminals to desist from criminal activities, delay their actions, or avoid a particular target." (Siegel, p.133, 1992). Strategies that are relevant to this perspective include the following: target hardening (deadbolts, self-defense skills, "the club," neighborhood watch programs, etc.), and legal deterrents (more police, mandatory sentencing, "three-strikes" laws, the death penalty, etc.). Research on deterrence seems to indicate that for some crimes, instrumental acts designed to produce economic gain and certain predatory "street crimes", there is a significant correlation between these preventive strategies and the reduction or deflection of criminal/deviant activities. However, for other criminal and deviant activities, the expressive crimes of violence and the subculturally reinforced forms of deviance, the evidence is less conclusive.
Key concepts in understanding this perspective include:
General Deterrence: People will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear apprehension and punishment. Norms, laws, and enforcement are to be designed and implemented to produce and maintain the image that "negative" and disruptive behaviors will receive attention and punishment. Although specific individuals become the object of enforcement activities, general deterrence theory focuses on reducing the probability of deviance in the general population. Examples of control activities reflecting the concerns of this concept include: Drunk-driving crackdowns, special gang-related crime task forces and police units, publication and highly visible notices of laws and policies (Notice: Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), and the death penalty.
Specific Deterrence: General deterrence strategies focus on future behaviors, preventing individuals from engaging in crime or deviant by impacting their rational decision making process. Specific deterrence focuses on punishing known deviants in order to prevent them from ever again violating the specific norms they have broken. The concern here is that motives and rationales that lie behind the original behavior can, perhaps, never be delineated, but through the rational use of punishment as a negative sanction, problematic behavior can be extinguished. Examples: shock sentencing, corporal punishment, mandatory arrests for certain behaviors (domestic violence), etc.
Incapacitation: Within the concept of specific deterrence is the idea that punishment must be effective. Most punishment in the modern societies involves imprisonment. Research demonstrates that recidivism amongst convicted felons following release from prison is as high as 63% and that most prison inmates had arrest records and convictions prior to their current offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989). The conclusion, then, is incarcerate to incapacitate. Prison as punishment may not alter future behavior, but it certainly reduces the chances an individual has for engaging in any other crime or deviance, and at least reduces the threat they constitute to the general population. Lock them up and throw away the key. Examples: Truth in Sentencing (requiring serving of 85% of a sentence), elimination of parole for certain crimes, "three strikes and you're out" laws.
Retributive Theory and Just Desert: Simply put, if criminals and deviants choose to engage in their disruptive and threatening behaviors, they deserve to be punished. The focus here is not on the future and what an individual may do. It is not concerned with prevention or rehabilitation. The aim here is to punish people for what they have done. Punish all individuals who violate the same norm in the same way. No exceptions, no mercy. "Retributionists argue that punishments are fair and necessary in a just society" (Siegel, p. 148, 1992).
Some general considerations concerning Rational Choice
The following questions and problems need to be considered in analyzing the current "popularity" of the rational choice model:
At what point are the rights of the innocent violated by the operation of official control policies? Once inflicted punishment can not be removed. How efficient is our system at determining guilt? Are punishment and deterrence goals that overrides determination of guilt beyond a shadow of doubt? What is the "goal" of the criminal justice system? Can such an individualistically based control policy (punish and deter individuals) address the issues that surround the social construction of crime and deviance?
References and Related Readings
Bureau of Justice Statistics-1989, UNCRIM Gopher, SUNY-Albany, 1994.
Marcus Felson, Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society, Pine Forge Press, 1994.
Allen Liska, Perspectives on Deviance, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1987.
Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, Crime and the American Dream, Wadsworth, 1994.
Stephan Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Edwin Pfuhl and Stuart Henry, The Deviance Process, 3rd ed., Aldine de Gruyter, 1993.
Larry Siegel, Criminology, 4th ed., West publishing, 1992.
URL: http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/devtheor.html
Owner: Robert O. Keel rok@umsl.edu
References and
Credits for this Page of Notes
Last Updated:
Monday, July 6, 2015 2:54 PM