Chapter 4 Criminology

Crime prevention strategies Increase the effort need to commit crime

o Situations crime prevention strategies involved developing tactics to reduce or eliminate a specific crime problem (such as shop lighting in an urban mall or street level drug dealing) o Increase the effort needed to commit crime ♣ Tactics to increase effort include target hardening techniques such as putting unbreakable glass on store fronts, locking gates, and fencing yards. ♣ Does it work? removing signs from store windows to increase interior visibility, installing brighter lights, and instituting a pay first policy have helped reduce thefts from gas stations and convenient stores. ♣ Research by Lynn Addington and Callie Rennison shows that living in a gated community reduced the risk of being targeted by burglars.

Evaluating General Deterrence

o Some experts believe that the purpose of the law and justice system is to create a "threat system" the threat of legal punishment should on the face of it deter law breaker through fear. o Nonetheless, crime rates and deterrent measures are much less closely related than choice theorists might expect. Despite efforts to punish criminals and make them fear crime, there is little evidence that the fear of apprehension and punishment alone ca reduce crime rates

Incapacitation

• Incapacitation o Even If severe punishments cannot effectively turn criminals away from crime it stands to reason that if more criminal are sent to prison the crime rate should go down. Because most people ago out of crime the duration of a criminal career is limited. o Placing offender behind bars during their prime crime years should reduce their lifetime opportunity to commit crime. o The shorter the span of opportunity the fewer offense they can commit during their lives hence, crime is reduced this theory which is known as the incapacitation effect seems logical but does it work? o Today more than one in every hundred adults is behind bars (about 2.3 million) people. Advocates of incapacitation suggest that this growth in the prison/jail population is directly responsible for the decade long decline in the crime rate putting dangerous felon under lock and key for longer periods of time significantly reduces the opportunity they have to commit crime, so the crime rate declines as well. o Although the difficult measure precisely there is at least some evidence that crime rates and incarceration rates are related. Economist Steven Levitt author of the widely read book freakonomics, concludes that each person put behind bars results in a decrease of ***15 serious crimes per year. He argues that the social benefits associated with crime reduction equal or exceed the social and financial costs of incarceration o Even though Levitt's argument is persuasive not all criminologist buys into the incapacitation effect: ♣ There is little evidence that incapacitating criminals will deter them from future criminality, and there is reason to believe they may be more inclined to commit even more crimes upon releases. There is a significant correlation between incarceration and recidivism. In other words, the more prior incarceration experiences people have the more likely they are to recidivate within 12 months of their release incapacitation does not produce a specific deterrent effect. ♣ Former inmates often suffer post release personal and financial problems that cause them to commit more crimes than they might have had they not been sentenced to prison. The crime that are saved while they serve time are more than made up for by the extra ones they commit because they are now ex-cons. ♣ By its nature the prison experience exposes young, first time offenders to higher risk, more experienced inmates who can influence their lifestyle and help shape their attitudes prisons are ***"schools for crime" ♣ Imprisoning established offender's may open new opportunities for competitor incarcerating gang members or organized crime figures may open illegal markets to new groups that are even hungrier and more aggressive than gang they replaced ♣ The effect of costly incarceration sentences may not justify the modest reduction in the crime rate they produce. Incarceration reduces crime, but only up a point. Once the incarceration rates hit a certain level (at the state level the tipping point appears to be around 325 inmates per 100,000 population) crime rates actually increase. It is possible that somewhere along the line mass incarceration destabilizes society, producing higher crime rates. ♣ Most criminal offense are committed by teen and very young adult's offenders to be sent to prison for a single felony conviction. Older criminals are already past the age when they are likely to commit crime. As a result, a strict incarceration policy may keep people in prions beyond the time when they cease high risk adolescent is on the street. A strict incarceration policy would result in a growing number of elderly inmates whose maintenance costs are higher than those of younger inmates. ♣ It is also possible that any incarceration crime rate relationship is not linear or predictable. There are times when a surge in incarceration coincided with a significant decline in crime rates (1991-2000) however during other times periods, crime rates increases coincided with increasing incarceration rates (1984-1991). Such findings weaken the argument that they key to lower crime rates is locking people up for long periods of rime.

Intro

• The schemes of calculating criminals such as Dr. Fata suggest that the decision to commit crime involved rational decision making, designed to commit crime involves rational decision making designed to maximize personal gain and avoid capture and punishment. • Criminologists believe sources of criminal violations even those involving drug abuse, vandalism, and violence are all the function of rational choice making. • The decision to violate the law is made only after the offender has carefully weighs the potential benefits and consequences and decides that the benefits of the crime are greater than the consequences. • Criminals may be motivated by a variety of human traits and emotions such as: greed, revenge, need, anger, lust, jealousy, thrill seeking, vanity. • After reviewing all available information, they believe that the rewards of crime outweigh its risk this view of crime causation is Rational Choice Theory. Rational choice theory: The view that crime is a function of a decision-making process in which the potential offender weighs the potential costs and benefits of an illegal

Specific deterrence Tough punishment and why is evidence mixeD?

• Tough Punishment o It is possible that a specific deterrent can be achieved if the severity of the punishment is increased and type o punishment is amplified. Research by Nejamin Meade and his associated found that inmates serving long sentence (five of more) are less likely to recidivate once released than those serving shorter sentencing. o Some state is now employing high security "supermax" prisons that apply a bare minimum of treatment and impose lockdown 23 hours a day, certainly such a harsh regimen should discourage future criminality. o However, studies that compare supermax prisoners with inmates from more traditional prisons on a one to one basis show that upon release supermax prisoners had significantly higher felony recidivism rates than controls form less restrictive prisons. Those related directly into the community from a supermax prison commit new offense sooner than supermax prisoners who first sent tradition institutions three months or more before their release. Creating tougher prisons then may not produce the desired deterrent effect. o Why is the evidence mixed? ♣ How is it possible that even the harshest treatment fails to produce the desired specific deterrent effect on future crime? • Punishment may breed defiance rather than deterrence. People who are harshly treated may want to show that they cannot be broken by system • The stigmas of harsh treatment labels people and helps lock offenders into a criminal career instead of convincing them to avoid one. • Experiencing the harshest punishment such as a stay in supermax prison may cause severe psychological problems because these prions isolate convicts offer little sensory stimulation and provide minimal opportunities for interaction with other people • The effect of punishment is negligible (unimportant) in neighborhoods where almost everyone has a criminal record Thus, although the concept of specific deterrence should work on paper

What is the concepts of rational choice theory?

o According to contemporary rational choice theory, law violation behavior is the product of careful thought and planning o It assumes that people are self-interested and willing to violate the law after considering both personal factors (money, revenge, thrills, and entertainment) and situational factors (such as a target availability, security measures, and police presence) o Anyone is a potential criminal if they calculate the profits are great and the risk are small.

Structuring crime Choosing the place of crime

o According to the rational approach the decision to commit crime, regardless of it substance, is structured by A, where it occurs and B, the characteristics of the target o Choosing the place of crime ♣ Criminals seem to carefully choose where they will commit their crime. ♣ Dealers use the middle of a long block so they can see everything in both directions can see the police before. ♣ Another tactic is bringing new buyers into spaces between apartments or into back lots, the dealer loses his tactical edge but has the protection of his boys if someone tries to pull anything

General deterrence

o According to the rational choice view, because human being are self-interested, rational, and reasoning they will violate the law if they do not fear the consequences of their crime. After all crime left unchecked can bring profit and pleasure. It stands to reason, then, that crime can be controlled but increasing the real or perceived threat of criminal punishment this is the concept of General deterrence. o Based on Cassar Beccaria's famous equation, the greater the severity, certainty, and speed of legal sanctions, the less inclined people will be to commit crime and, consequently lower the crime rate.

Is sex crime rational?

o Are men who solicit sex workers (called johns) rational decision makers? o Research Thomas Holt and his colleges found that not only did johns make careful and rational decisions when engaging prostitutes, they shared their knowledge and expertise in internet chat rooms and web forums. o Topics ranged from what kind of car to drive and how to avoid police stops to how to spot undercover policewomen posing in the street, police women look more fit and attractive then real prostitutes. o They also would share information on how to protect themselves from being crime victims such as finding spots for their sexual encounters that minimize likelihood of detection or violence. o Homes were off limits because they were afraid of getting robbed. You can see that johns are rational decision makers who learn to take precautions before engaging in an outlawed public order crime.

Structuring criminality.... Peers and Guardianship

o Because crime is offender specific a number of personal factors and conditions must be evaluated before someone decides to choose criminality o Peers and Guardianship ♣ Though young people are believed to be more crime prone than adults, effective monitoring by parents reduced the likelihood kids will commit crime; in contrast, unsupervised activities increase the risk. ♣ Kids are more likely to choose crime when they are out at night without supervision ♣ Gender differences in crime may be explained by levels of guardianship and peer influence, because adolescent girls are more likely to experience parental supervision than their brothers, they are more likely to socialize at home or at a friend's home with parent supervision. ♣ Adolescent boys are given more freedom to socialize away from home as they wish, thereby increasing the opportunity to engage in antisocial behavior. When girls go out they usually meet at shopping malls, where there are security guard and cameras that monitor behavior and limit criminal choice.

Punishment and Deterrence Certainty, of punishment

According to general deterrence theory if the certainty, severity, and celerity or speed of arrest, conviction, and sanctioning increase, crime rate should decline. Crime will persist however if people believe they can get away with crime and even if they are caught, they will have a good chance of escaping punishment. If people believe that their criminal transgression will almost certainly result in punishment, then only the truly irrational will commit crime o Certainly, of punishment ♣ A number of research efforts do show a direct relationship between crime rates and the certainty of punishment. And although the issue is far from settled, people who believe that they will get caught if they commit crime are the one most likely to be deterred from committing criminal acts. ♣ Certainty increases when local police officers are active, aggressive crime fighters, convincing would be criminals that the risk of apprehension outweighs any benefits they can gain from crime. ♣ Proactive, aggressive law enforcement seems more effective than routine patrol. Would be criminals are deterred when police concentrate their forces and focus on so called hot spots of crime. Convincing them that these areas are not unsafe and off-limits to criminal activity. ♣ Improving response time and increasing the number of patrol cars that respond per crime may increase police efficiency and deter people from committing crime. ♣ There is still debate on whether increasing the size o the local police force can actually reduce crime rates, they found that jurisdictions that increase visibility of police hire more officers, and used patrol officers in ways that increased the perceived risk of apprehension did enjoy deterrent effects and lower crime rates.

Evaluating the risk of crime

o Before deciding to commit a crime, the reasoning criminal evaluates the of apprehension, the seriousness of expected punishment, the potential value or benefit of the criminal enterprise, her ability to succeed, and the need for criminal gain. o People who believe that the risks of crime outweigh the rewards may decide to go straight. Those who find the risks acceptable are more willing to take a gamble on crime. o Burglars seem to choose targets on the basis of their value, novelty, and resale potential. Such as a new generation iPhone o The decision to commit crime is enhanced by the promise of easy gain with low risk o In contrast, the decision to forgo (omit) crime is reached when potential criminal believes that the risk outweigh the rewards: ♣ They stand a good chance of getting caught and being punished ♣ They fear the consequence of punishment ♣ They risk losing the respect of their peers, damaged reputations, and feeling of guilt and shame ♣ The risk of apprehension outweighs the profits and/or pleasure of crime If the rewards are great, the perceived risk small, and the excitement high, the likelihood of their committing additional crimes increase

Is hate crime rational?

o Can hate crime be rational? Hard to believe but when Ryan King and Gretchen Sutto examined the characteristics of an outbreak of hate crimes they found that three factors seem to trigger these events: ♣ An incident that leaves one group with a grievance against another ♣ A definable target group held responsible for the dead ♣ Publicity sufficient to make the event known to a broad public. o All these are signs of rationality. o Hate crimes then are not merely the product of a disturbed mind, but rather a calculated response to a concrete even whose impact is often fanned and inflamed by the media.

Offender specific

o Crime is also said to be offender specific because criminals are not simply robots or automations who engage in unthinking and unplanned acts of antisocial behavior. Before deciding to commit crime, individuals must decide whether have the personal needs, skills, and prerequisites to commit a successful criminal act. These assessments might include evaluation of: ♣ Necessary skills to commit the crime ♣ Immediate need for money or other valuables ♣ Availability of legitimate financial alternatives to crime ♣ Available resources to commit the crime ♣ Fear of expected apprehension and punishment ♣ Availability of alternative criminal acts, such as selling drugs ♣ Physical ability, including health, strength, and dexterity o Note the distinction made her between "crime and "criminality" a crime is an event; criminality is a personal trait.

Evaluating general deterrence Criminal discount punishments

o Criminal discount punishments ♣ Would be criminals are not well informed about the actual risks of sanctions. They may know somebody who made a bug score and that shaped their perceptions: according out their thinking, crime may actually pay. ♣ Criminals who have already been punished may believe that the likelihood of getting caught twice for the same type of crime is remote: "lightning never strikes twice in the same spot" they may reason: "no one is that unlucky"

Is drug use rational?

o Did Oscar winning Phillip Hoffman make an objective, rational choice to overdose on heroin? o Is it possible that these and other drug, a group not usually associated with clear-thinking, make rational choices? o Research does in fact show that at its onset, drug use is controlled by rational decision making. Users report that they began taking drugs when they believe the benefits of substance abuse outweigh the costs. That is, they believe the drug will be fun, exciting, thrilling experience. o Drug dealers approach their profession is a businesslike fashion. Traffickers and dealers face many of the same problems legitimate retailers. If they are successful in one area then people are attracted to another which will drive the prices down and undermine profit from another dealer. The dealers can fight back against competition by discounting the price of drugs or increasing quality, as long as this doesn't reduce profit margins. o Drug dealers face many of the same problems as law abiding business people; they differ in the tactic they use to help settle disputes

Evaluating situation crime prevention Hidden benefits What is diffusion What is discourage

o Hidden benefits ♣ Diffusion: an effect that occurs when efforts to prevent one crime unintentionally prevent another. ♣ Video cameras set up in a mall reduce shoplifting can also reduce property damage because of fear of being caught on camera. ♣ Intensive police patrols designed to target specifically high crime areas (hot spots) reduce crime in neighboring areas as well. ♣ Discourage: occurs when crime control efforts targeting a particular locale help reduce crime in surrounding areas and populations. ♣ Programs designed to control drug dealing in a particular area of the city have been found to decrease drug sales not only in targeted areas but also in adjacent areas ♣ The message that drug dealing would not be tolerated in particular neighborhood had spillover effect decreasing the total number of people involved in drug activity, even though they did not operate in the targeted area.

Policy implication of choice theory

o In some instances, research showing a deterrent effect has shaped public policy. In a famous study conducted in Minneapolis, Lawrence Sherman and Richard berk evaluate the effect of police action on repeat domestic violence and round clear evidence that when police take formal action (arrest) offenders are less likely to recidivate than when less serve methods are used (warning or a cooling off period) o Subsequent to this study, a number of states adopted legislation mandating that police either take formal action in domestic abuse cases or explain in writing their failure to act o When they redid the Minneapolis experiment in other locations and it did not duplicate the same results. In these locales, formal arrest was not a greater specific deterrent to domestic abuse than warning or advising the assailant. o Sherman and his associates later found that the effect of arrest quickly decays and that in the long run, arrest may actually escalate the frequently of repeat domestic violence. An explanation to this is that offenders who are arrested fear punishment but when their cases do not result in severe punishment their fear is eventually replaced with anger and violent intent toward their mates. o Another example is the three strikes rule and your out law that requires state courts to hand down mandatory periods of incarceration for up to life in prison to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. The rationale for its use relies on both general deterrence (scare off would be criminals) and incarceration (keeping repeat offender off the street) o Can hard line policies work? the results are mixed some use highly sophisticated research techniques have found a significant associate incarceration policy may also have residual benefits. Iilana Kuziemako and Steven found that as the number of prisoners incarcerated on drug related offenses rose dramatically 1,500 percent between 1980 and 2000, crime rates dropped. One reasons was that the incarceration policy had an unforeseen impact on drug markets: putting dealers in prison increased cost of cocaine by 10 to 15 percent and the higher prices spelled a drop of as much as 20 percent in the use of cocaine o Although this type of get tough policy appeals to the public, it may be premature to embrace a three-strike policy ♣ Most three time losers are on the verge of aging out of crime anyway. ♣ Current sentence for violent crime are already quite severe. Chronic offending is already punished severely ♣ An expanding prison population will drive up already high prison costs ♣ The police would be in danger because two-time offender would violently rest a third arrest knowing that conviction would mean a life sentence. o So whether crime control policy rests on a strict choice theory orientation can worn remained to be seen

Is violence rational?

o It is possible that violent acts are the product of reasoned decision making? Evidence confirms that violent criminals, even serial killers, select suitable targets by picking people who are vulnerable and lack adequate defense. o Street robbers use a considerable amount of rational thought before choosing a robbery, which may involve violence, over a burglary, which involves stealth and cunning. o Robbers generally choose targets close to their homes or in areas to which they routinely travel. Familiarity with the area gives them ready knowledge of escape routes this is referred to as their "awareness space" o Robbery levels are relatively low in neighborhoods where residents keep a watchful eye out for trouble and are quick to take notice of a stranger in their midst. o Robbers report that they avoid freestanding buildings because these can more easily be surrounded by police; others select targets that are known to do primarily cash business, such as bars, convince stores, and gas station. o Robbers also tend to shy away from victims who are perceived to be armed and potentially dangerous. o In some incidences, targets are chosen in order to send message rather than to generate capital. Bruce Jacobs and Richard wright conducted in depth interview with street robbers who target drug dealers and found that their crimes are a response to one of three types of provocations: ♣ 1. Market related: robberies emerge from dispute involving partner in trade, rivals, or generalized predators ♣ 2. Status based: violation involve encounters in which the robber's essential characters or values have been challenged. ♣ 3. Personalistic violations: flow from incident in which the robber's autonomy(ability of the person to make their own decisions) or sense of values has been jeopardized. o Robbery in this instance is a instrument used to settle scores, display dominance and stifle potential rivals. As Jacob and Wright conclude, retaliation certainly is rational in the sense that actors who lack legitimate access to the law and who prize respect above everything else will often choose to resolve their grievance through a rough and ready band of self-help.

Is crime truly rational?

o It is relatively easy to show that some crimes are the product of rational, objective thought, especially when they involve an ongoing criminal conspiracy centered on economic gain. o When prominent bankers and financial analysts such as Bernie Madoff were indicted for criminal fraud, their elaborate financial schemes not only showed signs of rationality but also exhibited brilliant, thought flawed, financial expertise. o Dr. Fatas scheme to defraud Medicare and insurance companies by false cancer diagnoses seems highly rational although diabolical and depraved. o Similarly, the activities of organized drug dealing street gangs demonstrates a reasoned analysis of market conditions, interests, and risks. o Densely found that gang boys learn special skills- how to seize territory, how to use violence, how to maintain secrecy, how to obtain intelligence - that enable them to successfully regulate and control the production and distribution of one or more given commodities or services unlawfully. With each step, densely finds, gangs more further away from *******"crime that is organized" and closer to "organized crime"

What is offense specific and offender specific?

o Rational choice views crime as offense specific and offender specific o Offense specific crime: The view that the offender reacts selectively to the characteristics of a particular criminal act. -example escape route, ease of stealing merchandise o Offender specific crime: The view that offenders evaluate their skills, motives, needs and fears before deciding to commit successful criminal act o Potential offenders might consider: ♣ Their evaluation of the target yield ♣ The probability of security devices ♣ Police patrol effectiveness ♣ Likelihood of apprehension ♣ Ease of selling stolen merchandise ♣ Presence of occupants ♣ Neighbors who might notice a break in ♣ Presence of guard dogs ♣ Escape routes ♣ Entry points and exits

Evaluating general deterrence Rationality

o Rationality ♣ Deterrence theory assumes a rational offender who weigh's the cost and benefits of a criminal before deciding on a course of action. Criminals may be desperate people who choose crime because they believe there is no reasonable alternative. ♣ Some may suffer from personality disorder that impair their judgment and render them incapable of making truly rational decisions. Psychologists believe that chronic offenders suffer from an emotional state that renders them both incapable of fearing punishment and less likely to appreciate the consequences of crime Research on repeated sex offenders finds that they suffer from an elevated emotional state the negate the deterrent effect of the law. There is also evidence that drinking alcohol impedes a person ability to reasonably assess the costs and benefits of crime if the benefits of crime are exaggerated the law deterrent affect may be deflated

Punishment and deterrence Severity of punishment

o Severity of punishment ♣ According to deterrence theory, people who believe they will be punished severely for a crime will not committing criminal acts. ♣ Nonetheless there is little consensus that strict punishments alone can reduce criminal activities, and most criminologist believe ***that they certainty of punishment, rather than its severity is the key to deterring criminal behavior ♣ One reason for this skepticism is the alleged failure of the death penalty to deter murder. Because this topic is so important, is discussed in the accompanying policies and issues in criminology features.\

Situational Crime Prevention WHat is a defensible space? What is the CRAVED model and what are the factors?

o Situation crime prevention: a method of crime prevention that seeks to eliminate or reduce particular crimes in specific settings. o According to because crime is rational and criminals calculating, effective crime prevention strategies must be aimed at reducing immediate and particular criminal opportunities, making it more difficult engage in successful criminal enterprise. o Such strategies as target hardening and improving surveillance are designed to convince would be criminals that even if they believe crime pays, it does not pay to commit it here and it pays more to go elsewhere. o Criminal acts can be prevented if ♣ (a) potential targets are carefully guarded ♣ (b) the means to commit crime are controlled ♣ (c) potential offender are carefully monitored o Desperate people may contemplate crime, but only the truly irrational will attack a well defended, inaccessible target and risk strict punishment. o One way to reduce crime is to reduce the opportunities to commit particular crimes. o This approach was popularized in the United States in the early 1970s by Oscar Newman who coined the term Defensible space. o Defensible space: the principle that crime can be prevented or displaced by modifying the physical environment to reduce the opportunity that individuals have to commit crime. o Another approach suggested by Ron Clarke, is the CRAVED model which identifies the factors that make theft related crimes attractive to potential thieves so that steps can take to prevented their criminal ambition. ♣ The CRAVED model to theft suggests that the appropriation of property is most likely to occur when targets is: • Concealable: merchandise that is easily hidden is more vulnerable to shoplifters than bulkier items • Removable: mobile items such as a car or bike • Available: Desirable objects that are widely available and easy to find are at high risk of theft. • Valuable: thieves will generally choose more expensive. • Enjoyable: how product tent to be enjoyable things to own or consume • Disposable: thieves tend to target items that are easy to sell o Recently tests they hypothesized that over the counter drugs, sold in supermarkets and other stores, can be produce of high similar to illegal drugs according to the CRAVED model these items should be shoplifted at higher rates than other produced.

Evaluating genreal deterrence Some offenders and some crimes are more "deterable" than others

o Some offenders and some crime are more "deterrable" than others ♣ Not every crime can be discouraged nor is every criminal deterabble some people may be suffering from personality disorders and mental infirmity that make them immune to the deterrent power of the law. ♣ Others live in economically depressed neighborhoods, where the threat of formal sanctions is irrelevant because people living in these areas have little to lose if arrested, their opportunities are few and they have little attachment to social institutions such as school and family. ♣ Even if they fear the consequences of the law they must commit crime to survive in a hostile environment Is also appears that it is easier to deter offender from some crimes than from others. The most significant deterrent effects appear to be achieved in minor crimes and offenses, such as recreational drug use, whereas most serious crimes such as homicide are harder to discourage

Specific Deterrence

o Specific deterrence: The view that criminal sanctions should be so powerful that offenders will never repeat their criminal acts. o The theory of specific deterrence (also called special or particular deterrence) holds that criminal sanctions should be so powerful that known criminals will never repeat criminal acts. o According to this view, the drunk driver whose sentence is a substantial fine and a week in the county jail should be convinced that the price to be paid for drinking and driving is too great to consider future violations. o Similarly, burglars who sped five years in tough, maximum security prison should find that enthusiasm for theft dampened. o In principle, punishment works when connection can be established between the planned action is unlikely to occur again. o The theory supposes that people can "learn from their mistakes" and that those who are caught and punished will perceive greater risk than those who have escaped detection. o The evidence on specific deterrence is decidedly mixed the association between experiencing punishment and desistance form crime is not always perfect. For example, while some initial research found that domestic violence offenders who received sever punishments were less likely to offend, follow up studies failed to replicate a significant specific deterrent effect. Many offenders recidivate, even after suffering a prison sentence the effect of incarceration on rearrests sometimes appears to be minimal

Deterrence and punishment Swiftness of punishment

o Swiftness of punishment ♣ The third leg to Beccaria's equation involves the celerity or speed of punishment: the most rapidly punishment is applied and the more closely it is linked to the crime, the more likely it is to serve as a deterrent. ♣ The deterrent effect of the law may be neutralized if there is a significant lag between apprehension and punishment. ♣ For example death penalty typically takes more than 10 years to elapse between the time a criminal is convicted and sentenced to death for murder and that persons execution delay in application of the death penalty may mitigate or neutralize the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment

Evaluating general deterrence System effectiveness

o System Effectiveness ♣ As Beccaria's famous equation tells us the threat of punishment involves not only its severity but also its certainty and speed. The American legal system is not very affective. About half of all crimes reported to police and police make arrest in only 20 percent of reported crimes. ♣ Even when offenders are detected, police officer may choose to warn rather than arrest. The offs of receiving a prison term are less than 20 per 1,000 crimes committed. As a result, some offenders believe they will not be severely punished for their acts, and they consequently have little regard for the law deterrent power. ♣ Even those accused of time behind bars in making their "rational choice" offender may be aware that the deterrent effect of the law is minimal

Selfish or Concerned?

o To accept the rational choice view, you must believe that criminals are selfish, self-absorbed individuals who care nothing about others. If they believe they ca get away with illegal and or immoral behavior they will try. o What holds them back: fear of apprehension and punishment o Not everyone accepts this version criminologist Robert Agnew argues that the average person is just as likely to give consideration to other as they are to satisfy their own self-interest. Most people feel distress at the suffering of others and are inclined to pitch in and help an emergency even if it means taking a risk or inconveniencing themselves. o He suggests that though many individuals are self-interested most of us are also socially concerned, a state of mind that provides a natural restrain against crime. o If his view is accurate then the vision of the self-centered criminal who care no but himself is incorrect. Rational choice theorists would disagree, of course, putting more stock into convincing would be criminals that crime does not pay, rather than hoping such people will empathize with their victims

The development of Rational choice theory

o Was developed from the roots of Classical criminology by Cesare Beccaria o Classical criminology was very wide spread throughout Europe and the US A theory of crime suggesting that criminal behavior is a matter of personal choice, made after the individual considers its costs and benefits, and that the criminal behavior reflects the needs of the offender (Cesare Beccaria) - Classical approach lasted for 100 years till the ninetieth century then popularity by criminologists declined being replaced by a positivist view o The positivist view focuses on *social and personal factors rather than personal choice and decision making o In the late 1960s it once again began to embrace classical ideas, producing books and monographs on the theme that criminals are rational actors who plan their crimes, who can be controlled by the fear of punishment and who deserve to be penalized for their misdeeds o In the 1960s Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker applied his view of rational behavior and human capital (that is, human competence and the consequence of investments in human competence) to criminal activity. o Becker argued that except for a few mentally ill people criminals behave in predictable or rational way when deciding to commit crime. o Engaging in cost benefit analysis of crime, they weigh what they expect to gain against the risks they must undergo and the costs they may incur, such as prison. o Instead of regarding criminal activity as irrational behavior, Becker viewed criminality as rational behavior that might be controlled y increasing the costs of crime and reducing the potential gain. o In thinking about crime, political scientist James Q Wilson observed that people who are likely to commit crime are unafraid of breaking the law because they value the excitement and thrills of crime, have a low stake in conformity, and the willing to take greater chances than the average person. If they could be convinced that their actions would bring sever punishment, only the totally irrational would be willing to engage in crime. o From these roots has evolved a more contemporary version of classical theory based on intelligent thought processes and criminal decision making; today this is referred to as the rational choice approach to crime causation.

Perception and deterrence

♣ According to deterrence theory, not only the actual chance of punishment but also the perception that punishment will be forthcoming, influence criminality. ♣ A central theme of deterrence theory is that people who believe or imagine that the will be punished for crimes in the present will avoid doing those crimes in the future. Even the most committed offenders e.g., gang member terrorists, will forgo criminal activities if they fear legal punishment. ♣ Conversely, the likelihood of being arrested or imprisoned will have little effect on crime rates if criminals believe they have only a small chance of suffering apprehension and punishment in the future. Because criminals are rational decision makers, if they can be convinced that crime will lead to punishment then they will be deterred. ♣ The greater the perception of punishment, the less people are willing to commit crime. Perception of punishment appears to change and evolve over time, shaped by a potential offender's experience and personality. ♣ There also may be different classes and types of offenders, some being more deterable than others. The most significant deterrent effect can be achieved on minor petty criminals, whereas more serious offender such as murderers are heard to discourage. ♣ High rate serious offenders may perceive less risk and more reward from rime, while others who commit less serious crime less frequently may view illegal acts as less rewarding: they tend to overestimate the risk of apprehension and punishment. More experienced offenders who may have gotten away with rime in the past are less likely to fear punishment in the future.

Crime prevention strategies Remove excuses

♣ Crime may be reduced by making it difficult for people to excuse their criminal behavior by saying things like I didn't know it was illegal or I had no choice. Municipalities have set up roadside displays that electronically flash a case speed as it passes, establishing the drives excuse that she did not know how fast she was going when stopped by the police. ♣ Trash containers, brightly displayed can eliminate the claim hat I just didn't know where to throw my trash. ♣ Reducing or eliminating excuses in this way also make it physically easy for people to comply with the laws and regulating, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will chose crime.

Crime prevention strategies Induce guilt: increase shame

♣ Crime may be reduced or prevented if we can communicate to people the wrongfulness of their behavior and how harmful is it to society. ♣ WE may tell them to "say no to drugs" or that "user are losers" by making people aware of the shamefulness of their actions we hope to prevent their criminal activities, even if the chance that they will be detected and punished are slight. ♣ Judge made se offender put signs out-front that says "sex offender lives here" and "sex offender in this car on all sides" ♣ Publishing john list in the news paper ♣ Ronald Clarke found that the introduction of caller id system created significant reduction in the number of obscene phone calls presumably because of the shame present by the threat of exposure.

Structuring Crime Choosing Targets

♣ Evidence of rational choice may also be found in the way criminals locate their targets. Market forces can shape decision making. Targets that decline in value due to oversupply or obsolescence are avoided; materials such as metal parts and wire may become coveted when undersupply cause their value to skyrocket. ♣ Auto thieves are known to be selective in their choice of targets often making their selection on cash value and the ease of sale. ♣ German cars are known for stripping because of the good audio in the car and has good second-hand value. ♣ Burglars also seem particularly rational when choosing targets. They make sure no one is home, some call ahead, some ring doorbell, others read newspapers for homes left unguarded while the off pants are at the weeding. ♣ They also seek unlocked doors and avoid the ones with deadbolts; housing with dogs are usually considered of limits. ♣ They prefer working 9am to 11 am and in midafternoon. When parents are either working or dropping off or picking up children from school ♣ It does not seem surprising that well organized communities that restrict traffic and limit neighborhood entrance and exit routes have experienced significant declines

Crime prevention strategies Increase the risk of committing crime

♣ If the risk of getting caught can be increase, rational offenders are less likely to commit crime. Marcus felon argues that the risk of crime may be increase by improving the effectiveness of crime discouragers: people who serve as guardians or property or people and who can help control would be criminals. ♣ Discourages can be grouped into three categories • "guardians": who monitor potential targets e.g., police and store security • "handlers": who monitor potential offenders e.g., parole officers and parents • "managers": who monitor place e.g., home owners garage attendant. ♣ Some crime discouragers are mechanical rather than human. Closed circuit TV cameras used to monitor locations may discourage crime while reducing the need for higher cost security personnel. ♣ New York has 4,000 cameras in Manhattan alone; Chicago linked public and private security cameras around 10,000. ♣ Great Britain estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras or 1 for every 14 citizens ♣ Research shows that CCTV intervention 1. Have a small but significant desirable effect of crime 1. Are most effective in reducing crime in car parking lots 3. Are most effective in reduction vehicle crime 4. Are more effective in reducing crime in the UK than in other countries

Marginal/Restrictive Deterrence

♣ Marginal deterrence: occurs when a relatively more sever penalty will produce some reduction in crime. ♣ In some instances, deterrence strategies can lead to less than perfect results. Rather than entirely eliminating crime, they may reduce its frequently, duration, and severity. ♣ Marginal deterrence refers to the relative effectiveness of punishments. Let's say when police are called to scene of a domestic violence disturbance they choose to arrest some offenders and let other go with a warning. ♣ If getting arrested reduces the chance of repeat offending when compared to a warning arrest is said to produce higher marginal deterrent effect. ♣ Restrictive (Partial) deterrence: refers to situation in which the threat of punishment can reduce but not eliminate crime. ♣ Restrictive deterrence (sometimes called partial deterrence) refers to the situations in which the threat of punishment can reduce but not eliminate the frequency, severity and duration of a crime. ♣ Restrictive deterrence would be achieved if creating a steep fine for going 20 mph over the speed limit resulted in the average motorist exceeding the speed limit only by 1- miles per hours people still speed but not by as much ♣ Criminologist Bruce Jacobs suggest that restrictive deterrence contains four separate but interrelated concepts: • The offender reduced the number of crimes she or he commits over a particular period of time • the offender crimes of lesser seriousness than the contemplated act, believing that punishment won't be as sever for a more minor infraction • The offender engages in situational measures to enhance the probability that the contemplated offense will be undertaken without risk of detection • The offender recognized a risky situational context, which causes him or her to commit the same crime at a different place or time. ♣ Recently Jacob along with Michael Cherbonneau interviewed active auto thieves to see if their behavior was altered by fear of apprehension or punishment. They found that polices and issues in criminology that thieves do perceive a restrictive deterrent effect of the law and use rational judgement to help them avoid detection and arrest. Marginal occurs when a relatively more sever penalty will produce some reduction in crime. while restrictive/partial when the threat of punishment can reduce but not eliminate the frequency severity or duration of crime.

Part of Structuring Criminality Personal Traits and Experience

♣ May be important elements in structuring criminality ♣ Female crack dealers for example, learn how to camouflage their activities to avoid police: they sell crack while hanging out in a park; they try and act normal anything not to draw attention to themselves and their business; they use props to disguise drug deals ♣ While criminal may learn when to commit crimes they also become aware when to quit. No matter how successful, a criminal physical strength and emotional toughness eventually began to wane, and some get the message that it may be time to turn from risky criminal way to life to a lower paying albeit(although) safer conventional lifestyle

Part of Structuring Criminality Economic need/opportunity

♣ One important decisions that people make before they commit crime is whether they need the money. ♣ Drug users may turn to crime to support their lifestyle. ♣ The FBI reports that the average take from a burglary is not a little more than 2,00 per crime, robberies average about 1,200 and bank robberies average 3,500 ♣ 2,000 dollars in less than an hour is alluring to someone who makes minimum wage ♣ There is also the potential for future riches no matter the current risks. Steven Levitt and Sudhirt Alladi Venkatesh interviewed drug members, they found that despite enormous risk to health, life, and freedom, average gang members are just above minimum. Why then did they keep doing it? Because they wanted to stay in drug business to earn a "management" higher drug lords get paid more.

part of Structuring Criminality Need for excitement and thrills

♣ People may engage in illegal behavior because they love the excitement and the buzz the crime can provide. For some crimes such as vandalism and shoplifting are alluring simply because "sneaky thrill" profit is not the primary motive ♣ The need for excitement may counter fear of apprehensions: the riskier the act the more attractive it come

Choice theories

♣ Rational choice • Major premise: law violating behavior occurs after offender's weigh information on their personal needs and situational factors involved in the difficulty and risk of committing a crime. • Strengths: Explains why high-risk people do not constantly engage in crime. Relates theory to crime control policy. It is not limited by class or another social variable. • Research focus: Offense patterns where, when, and how crime takes place ♣ General deterrence • Major Premise: people will commit crime if they perceived that the benefits outweigh the risk. Crime is a function of the severity, certainty, and speed of punishment • Strengths: shows the relationship between crime and punishment. Suggests a real solution to crime. • Research focus: Perception of punishment, effect of legal sanctions, probability of punishment, and crime rates. ♣ Specific deterrence: • Major premise: If punishment is severe enough, criminals will not repeat their illegal acts. • Strengths: Provides a strategy to reduce crime • Research focus: Recidivism, repeat offending, punishment type, and crime ♣ Incapacitation: • Major premise: Keeping known criminals out of circulation will reduce crime rates • Strengths: Recognizes the role that opportunity plays in criminal behavior. Provides a solution to chronic offending. • Research focus: prison population and crime rates, sentence length, and crime

Evaluating situation crime prevention hidden costs What is displacement? what is extinction? what is replacement?

♣ Situational crime prevention efforts may also contain hidden costs that may limit their effectiveness. • Displacement: occurs when crime control efforts in one location simply move, or redirect, offenders to less heavily guarded alternative targets. Beefed up police patrols may appear to reduce crime but in reality, merely shift it to a more vulnerable neighborhood • Extinction: Occurs when crime reduction programs produce short term positive effect, but benefits dissipate as criminals adjust to new conditions for example burglars learn to dismantle alarms or avoid patrols. A Philadelphia police program that made use of foot patrols to lower violent crime rates found that while the program worked at first the effect began to quickly fade. At first scared people but over time it goes away and people started reoffending. • Replacement: occurs when criminals try new offenses to replace those neutralized by crime prevention efforts. Foiled by burglar and car alarms, motivated offenders may turn to armed robbery. A risker and more violent crime. ♣ Before the effectives of situational crime prevention can be accepted, these hidden costs and benefits must be weighed and balanced.

Crime prevention strategies Reduce provocation

♣ Some crimes are the result of extreme provocation for example road rage. ♣ It might be possible to reduce provocation by creating programs that reduce conflict. ♣ Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig point out, alcohol is a significant factor in various kinds of crime, including rape and assaults. One way to reduce this sort of crime is to raise the price of beer, wine, and hard liquor. ♣ They suggest that raising the tax by 55 cents would stop the consumption of 6% of beer ♣ Another approach mandating an early closing time.

Crime prevention strategies Reduce the rewards of crime

♣ Target reduction strategies are designed to reduce the value of crime to the potential criminal. Jewelry stores display expensive rings with fake diamonds, while keeping the real stoned under lock and key, ♣ Retail establishments put small but valuable items in tamper proof hard plastic cases that emit electric signals to trigger alarms if they are taken out of the store they can only opened by store employees. ♣ Bike owners can put an indelible identification mark on their bicycle such as serial number, thieves are less likely to steak a bicycle that can be positivity identified.

Structuring crime Creating scripts

♣ With experience, criminals create behavior scripts that guide their interactions with victims. If they follow the script they can commit their crimes and avoid detection. ♣ Pederasts rely on scripts when they target child for sexual abuse. Before committing their crimes, offender will go through a series of steps, from first encounter to sexual contact. ♣ After meeting their victims, they work on gaining their trust by giving them love and attention. Once trust is secured some offenders will adopt strategies to proceed to the location for sexual contact. For that purpose, offenders will usually promise rewards or give inducement such as money to the victim or event threaten or use violence to get their way ♣ In sum, rational choice involved both shaping and structuring criminality and crime. Personality, age, status risk, and opportunity seem to influence the decision to become a criminal; place, target, and techniques help to structure crime.