Chapter two

Deterrence and Rational Choice theories

Introduction

Classical criminology
a school of thought based upon utilitarian notions of free will and the greatest good
for the greatest number. At its core, classical criminology refers to a belief that a
crime is committed after an individual weighs the pros and cons. The decision to
commit a crime is a rational decision, and is best countered through a deterrence-
based system (Akers et al., 2013)
Classical school is a philosophical alternative to what was brutal and inhumane justice
system by the old government in the quest to find the better and effective solution to
criminality.

CESARE MARCHESE BONESANA DE BECCARIA

(1738-1794)
 Father of modern criminal law
 Father of criminal justice
 Traditional father of criminology
 Founder of classical school of criminology
 Father of deterrence theory
 He wrote an essay “on crimes and punishment” which
lead to the widespread reformation of criminal justice
system across Europe and eventually across the world.

Objectives
At the end of this section, you should be able to:

1. Explain concepts of the theories discussed and describe the relationship of each
concept.
2. Evaluate the strength and weaknesses of the theories discussed.

3. Evaluate the policy implications or real world applications of the theories

discussed and construct a policy anchored on a good scientific theory or research.
4.

Topic Outline:
 I. Classical criminology and the deterrence doctrine
a. Principles of Deterrence doctrine: severity, certainty and celerity of punishment
II. Modern Deterrence theory
a) Studies on deterrence
b) Modifications and expansions of deterrence concepts
III. Rational choice theory
a) Deterrence and expected utility
b) Research on Rational choice theory
IV. Routine Activity Theory
a) Felson and Cohen: Motivated offenders, suitable targets and absence of
guardians

Try this

The wearing of face mask and social distancing are health protocols that are implemented
across the world and in the Philippines as well as other nation, there are legal sanctions to
those who will be caught not observing social distancing and not wearing of face mask
while outside of their respective homes.

Do you think most people obey such health protocols?

why or why not do they obey such health protocol?

Can there be rationality behind their obedience or disobedience?

Do the legal sanctions imposed on these protocols effective in terms of discouraging

disobedience among the people?

Think Ahead!
1. Certainty, severity, and celerity are the key elements of deterrence theory. What makes
certainty so important? Could we not reduce crime by making the punishment so severe that a
“rational” individual would be scared to death to commit criminal acts?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Routine activity theories look at people, both offenders and victims, and their routines. As
a result, some of the blame in a criminal incident may be placed on the victim. Is that fair? Is
a victim ever responsible, or partly responsible, for his or her own victimization?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Explain the evolution of classical school criminology from Beccaria, through Deterrence
Theory, Routine Activity Theory, Rational Choice Theory, and Just Deserts. What
modifications have been made along the way?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Classical school criminology relies heavily on the concept of free will. How can one ever
demonstrate empirically the existence of a free will?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

5. How has the recent research on the effects of specific deterrence verses perceptual
deterrence changed the way the entire concept of deterrence is viewed? What additional
studies should be conducted to clarify the issue?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
 Read and Ponder

Classical criminology and the Deterrence doctrine

Classical criminology refers primarily to the works and writings of Cesare Beccaria
and Jeremy Bentham as its foundation. “Both were utilitarian social philosophers who were
primarily concerned with legal and penal reform rather than with formulating an
explanation of criminal behavior. In doing so, however, they formulated a theory of crime
that remains relevant to criminology today (Akers, 1999)”.

Beccaria’s essay “On crimes and punishments” contains the core ideas of classical
school of thought, these ideas or to put it formally – concepts, can be summarize into the
following;

Concepts of classical school

o Free will – this is the core assumption of the classical school. the ability to
choose or decide on one’s own activities or actions.
o Utilitarianism – greatest good for the greatest number
o Hedonism – the pursuit of pleasure and evasion of pain
o Rationality – the ability of human to think logically and calculate pros and
cons of a certain action.
o Deterrence – the act of discouraging an action by instilling fear of
consequences. It is one of the purpose of punishments.
o Human rights – are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards
of human behavior and are regularly protected as natural or legal rights by
laws. Human rights are uphold to keep societal order in place.
o Social contract – a political theory on the origin of society and government
which assumes that people agreed to give up a portion of their freedom in
exchange of security given by the state or government.

The concept of free will

Free will is the ability to choose between different course of actions un-obstructed/
unhindered.

The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by christian philosophy (4th century
ce). It has traditionally meant lack of necessity in human will, so that "the will is free" meant
"the will does not have to be such as it is".

In simple terms – free will does not have causality. Nothing caused you to choose but your
will alone, therefore your will free.
This requirement was universally embraced by both incompatibilists and compatibilists.

If you chose not to wear a mask when going out in public places, then you have exercised
your free will. You do what you have decided to do.

Free will believes that humans are rational and can make decisions based on indivdual’s own
will.

The concept of utilitarianism

What is good and what is evil?

Utilitarianism is a moral theory/philosophy which focuses on the consequences of our actions

and treats intention as irrelevant

Good consequences = good action

Modern utilitarianism is founded by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill in 18th century. According to them, actions should be measured in terms of happiness or
pleasure that they produce.

As happiness is our final ends – you want what you want because you think it will make you
happy. Utilitarian believes that in order for this the moral theory to be applicable to everyone
it must be grounded to something intuitive –the primal desire to seek pleasure and avoid
pain

1. Utilitarianism is hedonistic

Hedonism states that humans seek pleasure and work to avoid pain

2. Utilitarianism is not egoistic

Egoism states that everyone are pursuing their own pleasure or their own good,

In contrary,

3. Utilitarianism is other-regarding – it says that we should not only seek our own
pleasure but also as many human beings as possible

4. Utilitarianism’s core idea is the principle of utility – which states that “what
produces pleasure is good and what produces pain is evil and to maximize the
goodness, we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest
numbers”

There are two (2) types of utilitarianism

1. Act / classical utilitarianism – on all situation the greatest good for the greatest numbers
should always be applied.

20th century philosopher Bernard Williams offered this thought experiment:

Jim is on a botanical expedition in south america when he happens upon a group of 20
indigenous people and a group of soldiers.

The whole group of indigenous people is about to be executed for protesting their oppressive
regime.

For some reasons, the leader of the soldier offers Jim a chance to shoot one of the prisoners
since he’s a guest to their land. He says that if Jim shoots one of the prisoners, he will let the
other 19 go but if Jim refuses, then the soldiers will shoot all 20 protesters.

What should Jim do?

Jim should do what classical Utilitarian’s recommends – doing the greatest good for the
greatest number on all given situation.

But there are flaws in this moral theory when maximizing the greatest good for the greatest
number

This other thought experiment is a good example of a dilemma on classical utilitarianism;

A doctor having five (5) patients all waiting for transplant, one needs a heart another a lung
two (2) are waiting for kidneys and the last needs a liver. The doctor is pretty sure that the
patients will going to die before their names appear in the transplant list and he just so
happens to have a neighbor who has no family, total reckless and not a very nice guy. The
doctor knows nobody will be going to miss him if he were to disappear and by some miracles
the neighbor is a match for all the five (5) patients. It seems like even though - it will be a
bad day for the neighbor, an act/classical utilitarian should kill the neighbor and give the
organs to the five (5) patients.

It’s the greatest good for the greatest number.

The death of the neighbor is no different with the death of any of the patients.

Because of this kinds of thought experiments, Utilitarian formed another framework for their
theory. This is called;

2. Rule utilitarianism

Focuses on the long-term good and on a larger scale.

Rule utilitarianism refrain us from acts that maximize utility in the short run and instead
follow rules (law) that will maximize utility for the majority of the time.

Deterrence principles: Severity, Certainty and Celerity of Punishment

The word deter means “to discourage”. Deterrence Doctrine is a theory of penology which
justifies the use of punishment in discouraging people from committing crimes. In reference with the
essay written by Beccaria, for a punishment to be effective it should have appropriate degrees of the
three (3) principles namely severity, certainty and celerity.

Severity and Fitting the Punishment to the Crime

“The punishment must fit the crime” this can be interpreted as retribution (an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth) but if it severity is examined carefully, it goes beyond retributive
form of justice.

“A punishment that is too severe is unjust and the punishment that is not severe
enough does not deter” (Akers, 1999)

Severity refers to the gravity of punishment that is not too much or too less but is
sufficient enough to deter an offender to repeat an act of crime or a probable offender to do
the same. The logic behind severity is anchored on the assumption that individual offenders
calculate rationally whether they will gain more than the cost of crime or not, if they see that
there is more gain in committing a crime than the consequences it has to them, they will
choose to commit the crime. In using punishment as a means to deter, there must be sufficient
severity in the form of punishment to be serve in relation to the act of crime regardless who is
the offender in order to put a lasting impression on the minds of individuals who considers
doing such act. The assumption behind this idea is that all individuals regardless of their
background, will derive a similar amount of pleasure or gain in a particular act of crime
(Akers, 1999).

The bottom line of severity as a principle of Deterrence doctrine is that if an

individual see’s that there is more pain or bad consequences in committing crime than the
pleasure it brings, then as a rational individual they will not commit a crime. It also assumes
that on a more harmful crime, more pleasure it brings to the offender and such would need a
more severe punishment to outweigh the hedonistic calculation of the offender and that the
offender would likely chose not to commit the crime.

Certainty and Celerity of Punishment

For a punishment to effectively deter an individual in committing a crime, certainty

and celerity should also be considered and not severity alone. Celerity refers to swiftness of
punishment from the time the crime was committed.

The more immediately after the commission of a crime a punishment is inflicted, the
more just and useful it will be. . . . An immediate punishment is more useful; because the
smaller the interval of time between the punishment and the crime, the stronger and more
lasting will be the association of the two ideas of crime and punishment. (Beccaria, 1972:18-
19)

Certainty on the other hand, refers to the probability an offender be apprehended or

punished from committing a crime. How immediate a punishment be serve in the Philippines
when a rapist was caught? – this is celerity, how much probability that an offender be
arrested when a rape case has been reported to the police in the Philippines? – this is
certainty.

Beccaria and Bentham saw a connection between certainty and severity of

punishment. Certainty is more effective in deterring crime than severity of punishment. The
more severe the punishment, the less likely it is to be applied; and the less certain the
punishment, the more severe it must be to deter crime.

There are two (2) ways the Deterrence doctrine operates

1. when the state's punishment of offenders serves as an example to those in the general
public who have not yet committed a crime, instilling in them enough fear of state
punishment to deter them from crime (Zimring, 1971; Zimring and Hawkins, 1973) – This is
called General Deterrence.

2. when the offender was certainly caught and severely punished, he will be prevented or
refrained from committing another crime or repeating the same crime – This is known as
Specific Deterrence or Special Deterrence.

Modern deterrence theory

Studies on Deterrence doctrine

We have heard about the revival of death penalty for illegal drug offenders from the
speech of President Rodrigo Duterte on his State of the Nation Address. This is actually a
very common trends in legislation and even among criminal justice practitioners not only in
the Philippines but incudes all other nations. This idea is in line with the Deterrence doctrine
in the effort to increase the certainty and severity of punishment in order to effectively deter
offenders from repeating the act of crime or probable offenders from doing the same.

The potential to deter offenders are always at the core of every criminal sanctions
although The policy on longer sentences does not deter, it definitely has incapacitation effect
when selectively applied on habitual offenders (Blumstein et al., 1978). Despite the history
and importance of deterrence theory in criminal justice, empirical research designed to test it
are very rare until 1960’s (Akers, 1999). Most of the discussion about Deterrence are
revolving on the philosophical, moral and humanitarian aspect of punishment rather than the
empirical validity of deterrence theory (Ball, 1965; Toby, 1964; Gibbs, 1975). During 1970’s
when the deterrence theory becomes the most discussed and research among criminological
theories (Gibbs, 1975; Tittle, 1980; Wright, 1993b; Stitt and Giacopassi, 1992).

In the United States, the first studies on deterrence consisted primarily of comparisons
between states which provided capital punishment for first-degree homicide and those which
had no death penalty, it also examined homicide rates in states before and after they abolished
capital punishment (Akers, 1999). These studies found that the provision or absence of the
death penalty in state statutes had no effect on the homicide rate (Sellin, 1959; Bedau,
1964). Research by Gibbs (1968), Tittle (1969), and Chiricos and Waldo (1970) moved
beyond the effects of death penalty and tested the deterrent effect of certainty and severity in
a larger range of crime and delinquency which became the starting point of following studies
that have continued on deterrence theory. On the other hand, celerity is seldom included in
studies about Deterrence theory (Akers, 1999).

Objective Measures of Deterrence

Deterrence research measures the severity and certainty of criminal penalties in two
ways. The first approach is to use objective indicators from official criminal justice statistics.
The certainty or risk of penalty, for instance, is measured by the arrest rate (the ratio of
arrests to crimes known to the police) or by the proportion of arrested offenders who are
prosecuted and convicted in court. The severity of punishment may be measured by the
maximum sentence provided by law for an offense, by the average length of sentence for a
particular crime, or by the proportion of convicted offenders sentenced to prison rather than
to probation or some other non-incarceration program. Deterrence theory predicts an inverse
or negative relationship between these official measures of legal penalties and the official
crime rate measured by crimes known to the police. When the objective certainty and severity
of criminal sanctions are high, according to the theory, official crime rates should be low
(Gibbs, 1968; 1975; Tittle, 1969; 1980; Chiricos and Waldo, 1971; Ross, 1982).

Perceptual Measures of Deterrence

The second approach is to measure individuals' subjective perceptions of legal

penalties. The objective threat of legal punishment means nothing if citizens are not aware of
the official sanctions or do not believe that there is any high risk of penalty if they were to
commit a crime. In fact, most people have a very limited knowledge of what the legal
penalties actually are and often make very inaccurate estimations of the true odds of
apprehension and incarceration. But a person's fear of punishment should have a deterrent
effect on his or her decision to violate the law, even if that fear has no connection with
objective reality. Ultimately, deterrence theory proposes that it is what people believe about
the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment, regardless of its true risks, that
determines their choice of conformity or crime. Recognizing this crucial cognitive dimension
of deterrence, researchers have utilized "subjective" measures of the risks and severity of
legal penalties as perceived by individuals. This is measured, for example, by asking
respondents on questionnaires or in interviews questions such as, "How likely is it that
someone like you would be arrested if you committed X? " Most research on deterrence since
the 1970s has used these perceptual measures, typically relating individuals' perceptions of
risk and severity of penalties to their self-reported delinquency and crime. 3 The higher the
risks of apprehension and the stiffer the penalties for an offense perceived by individuals, the
theory predicts, the less likely they are to commit that offense.

Modification and Expansion of Deterrence Concept

 The study of Pasternoster et. al., (1983; 1985) they have expanded the Deterrence
beyond legal penalties and included variables from social bonding theory such as moral
beliefs, peers and attachment to parents and variables from social learning theory such as
perceived risk of informal or social sanctions from family and friends and association with
offenders.

“Zimring and Hawkins (1973) have argued that formal punishment may deter most
effectively when it "sets off' or provokes these informal social sanctions. An adolescent may
refrain from delinquency, not only merely out of fear of what the police will do, but of what
his or her parents will do once they learn of his or her arrest. Williams and Hawkins (1989)
expand on this notion of the deterrent effects of informal sanctions that may be triggered by
the application of formal criminal justice sanctions. They found in their study that the arrest
of an abusing husband or boyfriend may have a deterrent effect, in part because of a concern
over the negative reactions of friends, family, neighbors, or employers toward him based on
their knowledge that he has been arrested. In this instance, fear of arrest may be a deterrent,
not only because of the negative experience of the arrest itself, but because of other negative
consequences invoked by the arrest. These may include the informal costs of severed
relationships, damage to one's reputation, and the possible loss of current or future
employment. Williams and Hawkins argue that the general concept of deterrence should be
expanded to include these informal negative sanctions. Subsequent research by Nagin and
Paternoster (1991 b) does not support this argument, however, when it is applied to
delinquency. They find a very small deterrent effect from the perceptions of formal sanctions,
and this effect is not increased at all as a result of informal costs that may be related to the
formal sanction. Instead, the informal sanctions have an independent effect on delinquent
behavior that is stronger than the effect of perceived formal sanctions” (cited in Akers, 1999
page 22).

The Rational Choice theory

The Rational Choice theory which is used in Economy in predicting the changes in
supply and demand is different from the Rational Choice theory in Criminology. The
Difference are the variables and the focus; the economic rational choice considers individual
rationality mainly on the decision to buy or not on a certain product or goods and variables
such as basic commodities, price etc., while the Criminological Rational Choice theory
focuses on the decision of an individual to commit a crime, however, Rational Choice theory
is based on “expected utility” principle in economic theory.

The foundations of rational choice theory can be traced back from the writings of the
classical philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, although, they did not
specifically used the word Rational Choice but it was embedded in their assumptions that
individuals commit crimes out of their rational exercise of free will. It was later on 1980’s
when the term Rational Choice was used and formal studies has been conducted (Akers,
1999).
 The difference between Deterrence and Rational Choice is that the latter is broader
and provides and explanation on why do individuals commits crime while the former
(Deterrence Theory) only focuses on what, why and how punishment should be imposed. To
be accurate, he Rational Choice perspective is one of the expansion of deterrence concept, the
Deterrence is considered as one of the concepts of Rational Choice as Deterrence offers the
standards of punishments to be imposed. On the other hand, another penal theory called “just
dessert” offers another standard on punishment. According to this view, an individual should
be punished because he committed a crime out of free will and therefore he is responsible for
the harm caused by his act, the punishment should be the same as the harm he inflicted (an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) (Akers et. al., 2013).

Figure : rational choice flowchart from https://image.slideserve.com/1273100/slide9-l.jpg

Deterrence and Expected Utility

The relationship between deterrence and rational choice theories is that they both
grew out of the same utilitarian philosophy of the 18th century (Gibbs, 1975). The former
was applied to the law, and the latter to the economy. Despite this long historical connection,
rational choice theory of crime has only recently been introduced in criminology. Except for
the use of such concepts as "aleatory risk" in delinquency research by sociologists (Short and
Strodtbeck, 1965), rational choice was introduced to criminology primarily through the
analyses of crime by economists (Becker, 1968; Heineke, 1978; Crouch, 1979). Gibbs
(1975:203) noted that "shortly after the revival of interest in the deterrence question among
sociologists, economists were drawn to the subject in large number."

Some criminologists, who had been conducting deterrence research for some time,
began in the 1980s to refer to the economic model of rational choice as an expansion of the
deterrence doctrine beyond legal punishment. However, rational choice theorists claim much
more than just an expansion of deterrence theory. The theory is proposed as a general, all-
inclusive explanation of both the decision to commit a specific crime and the development of,
or desistance from, a criminal career. The decisions are based on the offenders' expected
effort and reward compared to the likelihood and severity of punishment and other costs of
the crime (Cornish and Clarke, 1986).

Research on Rational Choice theory

“Do offenders calculate that the effort and costs of crime are less than the expected
reward before the act in the way predicted by rational choice theory? The answer depends on
whether one believes this theory assumes that pure or partial rationality operates in crime.
Does the theory hypothesize that each person approaches the commission of a crime with a
highly rational calculation of pleasure versus pain before acting on or refraining from the
crime? Does an offender choose to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking
into account only a carefully reasoned, objectively or subjectively determined set of costs and
benefits? If it is this kind of pure rationality that rational choice theory assumes, then the
theory has virtually no empirical validity. The purely rational calculation of the probable
consequences of an action is a rarity even among the general conforming public. Moreover,
even offenders who pursue crime on a regular, business-like basis typically do not operate
through a wholly rational decision-making process (Akers, 1999:24)”.

The study of Tunnell (1990; 1992) found that the offenders were not threatened
imprisonment when they committed another crime. Offenders believes that if ever they get
caught, they will not serve much time in prison or they believed that they will not be caught
at all. Furthermore, they were not afraid to serve time in prison because life in prison was not
threatening to them. These findings are in line with rational choice theory, since the expected
benefits were perceived as outweighing the expected costs of the crime; hence, the decision
was made to commit the crime. However, the process whereby offenders reached a decision
to attempt another crime did not fit the model of a purely rational calculation of costs and
benefits. They did try to avoid capture, but their actions and assessments of the risks were
very unrealistic, even to some extent irrational. They were unable to make reasonable
assessments of the risk of arrests, did little planning for the crime, and were uninformed
about the legal penalties in the state where their crimes were committed. In the study, all of
the offenders;

“Reported that they (and nearly every thief they knew) simply do not think about the
possible legal consequences of their criminal actions before committing crimes .... Rather
than thinking of possible negative consequences of their actions, those offenders reported
thinking primarily of the anticipated positive consequences .... They simply believed that they
would not be caught and refused to think beyond that point.

The decision-making process appears not to be a matter of rational evaluation or

calculation of the benefits and risks ... Risks (1) are thought about only rarely or (2) are
considered minimally but are put out of their minds. (Tunnell, 1990:680-81)”

Similarly, in an ethnographic study of burglars, Paul Cromwell and his associates

found that "a completely rational model of decision making in residential burglary cannot be
supported" (Cromwell et al., 1991 :43). Rather, professional burglars engage in only partially
rational calculation of gains and risks before deciding to burglarize a house, and "research
reporting that a high percentage of burglars make carefully planned, highly rational decisions
based upon a detailed evaluation of environmental cues may be in error" (Cromwell et al.,
1991 :42).

“Most of our burglar informants could design a textbook burglary .... They often
described their past burglaries as though they were rationally conceived and executed. Yet
upon closer inspection, when their previous burglaries were reconstructed, textbook
procedures frequently gave way to opportunity and situational factors (Cromwell et al.,
1991:42).”

Rational theorists seldom include pure rationality but instead they have developed a
model of partial rationality that considers limitations and constraints on choices through lack
of information, moral values, and other influences on criminal behavior (Akers, 1999).

The Routine Activity theory

“Routine activities theory is, to some extent, a development and subdivision of
rational choice theory which proposes that for a personal or property crime to occur, there
must be at the same time and place a perpetrator, a victim, and/or an object of property
(Felson, 1998). The crime event can take place if there are other persons or circumstances in
the locality that encourage it to happen but, on the other hand, the offence can be prevented if
the potential victim or another person is present who can take action to deter it (burke,
2009)”.

Cohen and Felson: Motivated offenders, suitable targets and absence of guardians

‘Cohen and Felson (1979) took these basic elements of time, place, objects, and
persons to develop a ‘routine activities’ of crime events. They are placed into three categories
of variables that increase or decrease the likelihood that persons will be victims of ‘direct
contact’ predatory – personal or property – crime. The first variable is the presence in the
locality of motivated offenders which are perceived to be predominantly young males.
Second, there is the necessity of available suitable targets, in the form of a person or property.
The term target was used in preference to that of victim because the acquisition of property or
money was seen to be the focus of the great majority of criminal behavior. Suitability of the
target is characterized by four attributes (VIVA):

• Value calculated from the subjective rational perspective of the offender

• Inertia, the physical aspects of the person or property that impede or disrupt its suitability as
a target
• Visibility, which identifies the person or property for attack
• Accessibility which increases the risk of attack.

The third variable is the absence of ‘capable guardians’ against crime. Thus, the
likelihood of a crime taking place increases when there is one or more persons present who
are motivated to commit a crime, a suitable target or potential victim that is available, and the
absence of formal or informal guardians who could deter the potential offender. In short, ‘the
risk of criminal victimization varies dramatically among the circumstances and locations in
which people place themselves and their property’ (Cohen and Felson, 1979: 595).

Cohen and Felson observe that it is the fundamental changes in daily activities related
to work, school, and leisure since World War II that have placed more people in particular
places at particular times. This has both increased their accessibility as targets of crime and at
the same time keeps them away from home as guardians of their own possessions and
property.

In his more recent work, Felson (1998) has come to place less emphasis on the
significance of formal guardians – such as the police – because he has reached the conclusion
that crime is a private phenomenon largely unaffected by state intervention. He now
emphasizes the natural crime prevention and deterrence that occurs in the informal control
system, the “quiet and natural method by which people prevent crime in the course of daily
life” (Felson, 1998: xii–xiii). Ordinary people, oneself, friends, family, or even strangers are
the most likely capable guardians.

Felson (1998) has also subsequently applied routine activities theory to four crime
categories other than the property variants:

• exploitative (robbery, rape)

• mutualistic (gambling, prostitution, selling and buying drugs)
• competitive (fighting)
• Individualistic (individual drug use, suicide).

In doing so he has identified a fourth variable that enables a criminal event to take
place – the absence of an intimate handler, a significant other, for example, a parent or
girlfriend – that can impose informal social control on the offender. A potential offender must
escape the ‘intimate handler’ then find a crime target without being under the surveillance of
this ‘capable guardian’.
 Cohen and Felson (1979) relate crime rates to a ‘household activity ratio’, that is, the
percentage of all households that are not husband–wife families or where the wife is
employed outside the home. Such households are considered more vulnerable to crime
victimization because their members are away from home more and less able to function as
guardians of their property. Moreover, they are more likely to possess more desirable goods
to be stolen, while at the same time they are more exposed to personal crime away from
home. Controlling for age composition and unemployment, Cohen and Felson found that the
changes in household activity were correlated with changes in the rates of all major predatory
violent and property crimes.

. Cohen, Kluegel and Land (1981) have developed a more formalized version of
routine activities theory and renamed it ‘opportunity’ theory. This considers elements of
exposure, proximity, guardianship and target attractiveness as variables that increase the risk
of criminal victimization. But these are not measured directly. These are assumed from
variations in age, race, income, household consumption, labor force participation, and
residence in different 55 Contemporary rational actor theories areas of the city obtained from
US crime victimization surveys. Their findings nevertheless support most of their
propositions. (Burke, 2009)”

This figure shows he relationship of each variables.

For a crime to happen, all contributing variables should be Present (motivated

offender, place/opportunity, suitable target) And the absence of the following intervening
variables (place manager or capable guardian, intimate handler).

Figure : the problem analysis triangle

 Additional information

Absolute deterrence
This refers to the amount of crime that has been prevented simply due to the fact that
a formal system is in place so that an individual could be legally punished for
committing a criminal act.
Bounded rationality
It is an idea that human rationality is limited due to the limitations of mental capacity
to withhold memory, process information, make decision and other factors that may
include the knowledge acquired by the person who will be deciding. A thief who has
been caught thought that nobody was around when he committed the crime, his action
may be considered rational despite of his failure.
Burglary
it pertains to the illegal entry into a home or establishment with intent to commit a
crime, especially theft.
Celerity
One of the three elements of deterrence. Celerity refers to how quickly an individual
is punished after committing a crime.
Certainty
One of the three elements of deterrence. Certainty refers to how likely it is that an
individual will be caught and punished for a crime that he or she has committed.
Certainty is the most important of the three elements.
Compatibilism
It is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is
possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that
have nothing to do with metaphysics. They say causal determinism does not exclude
the truth of possible future outcomes.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
This refers to a set of practices designed to make potential criminal targets less
attractive. The belief that crime is a rational act is used to make a potential target less
attractive to a criminal, and thus not a “rational” target.
Formal sanction – legal sanction (see sentence)
Habitual offenders
In Wikipedia it is referred as repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted
of a new crime who was previously convicted of crimes.
Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and
specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions.
They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via
imprisonment.
 According to the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, a person shall be deemed to
be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto,
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Incarceration
A confinement in a jail or prison or the act of imprisoning someone or the state of
being imprisoned
Incompatibilism
It is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that
persons have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will
where philosophers must choose one or the other. This view is pursued in at least
three ways: libertarians deny that the universe is deterministic, the hard determinists
deny that any free will exists, and pessimistic incompatibilists (hard indeterminists)
deny both that the universe is determined and that free will exists.
Incompatibilism is contrasted with compatibilism, which rejects the determinism/free
will dichotomy.

Informal sanction – social sanction

Is a social reaction of approval or disapproval in response to someone’s
actions. Social sanctions enforce a standard of behaviour that is deemed
socially acceptable and this is essential for society to regulate itself and
maintain order.
Principle of expected utility
Economic theory which states that people will act in a manner that increases their
benefits and reduces their losses. This ties in closely with classical criminology and,
by definition, rational choice theory, where people seek to increase their pleasure and
reduce their pain.
Recidivist offenders
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines define a recidivist as the one who, at the
time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
School of thought
A school of thought, or intellectual tradition, is the perspective of a group of people who
share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of
a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, economics, cultural movement, or art
movement.
Scared Straight
This program began in the 1970s with the belief that taking young offenders or
potential offenders to a prison environment, and exposing them to the realities of
prison life, could prove beneficial in reducing delinquency. Like boot camps,
however, Scared Straight did not produce the expected results.
Severity
 One of the three elements of deterrence. Severity refers to how harsh the punishment
for a crime will be. In classical criminology, it is important to remember that a
punishment must fit the crime. If a punishment is not severe enough, it will not deter
crime. If it is too severe, it is unjust and can lead to more crime.
Sentence
It refers to punishment that was actually ordered or could be ordered by a trial court in
a criminal procedure.
Shock Incarceration
This approach generally uses a combination of a brief prison sentence followed by
probation. The hope is that a brief exposure to the realities of incarceration will deter
the offender from further criminality.
Thoughtfully Reflective Decision Making (TDRM)
This term describes a process of good decision making where all the relevant
information is collected and analyzed, and possible solutions and alternative solutions
are thought about. Reflection on what went right and wrong is also part of the process.

See if you can do this

CHAPTER TEST:

MULTIPLE CHOICE: encircle the letter that corresponds to the best answer of your choice.

1. Which of the following are the proponents of the Routine Activity Theory?
a. Cohen and Felson b. Cornish and Clarke c. Becarria and Bentham d. none of these

2. What particular theory is an expansion of Deterrence Doctrine which included the economic
variable such as women joining the working class which makes their home vulnerable to
burglary?
a. Routine Activity Theory b. Rational choice c. Deterrence theory d. just
dessert
3. Which penal theory suggest a retributive form of justice?
a. Just dessert b. Deterrence theory c. Absolute deterrence d. all of
these

4. What is a fundamental human instinct which seeks pleasure and avoid pain?
a. Hedonism b. Principle of utility c. Utilitarianism d. Free will
5. What penal theory which attempts to use punishment as a means to discourage the offender
from repeating the crime committed or to set as an example to others so they will not do the
same?
a. Deterrence b. Specific deterrence c. General deterrence d. Perceptual deterrence

6. In studies on deterrence, which type of measures used when conducting study on perception
of individuals to the likelihood of getting arrested?
a. Deterrence b. Specific deterrence c. General deterrence d. Perceptual deterrence

7. Which measure used in studying deterrent effect when the data are gathered from official
criminal justice statistics?
a. Objective measure b. Perceptual measure c. Empirical validity d. Statistical
measure

8. What is the moral theory is the core of rational choice perspective?

a. Rule utilitarianism b. Act utilitarianism c. Principle of utility d. Utilitarianism

9. What moral theory which suggests to follow laws rather than maximizing greater good for the
greater number on their own?
a. Rule utilitarianism b. Act utilitarianism c. Principle of utility d. Utilitarianism

10. When deterrent effect is on the probable offenders by setting example, it is called?
a. Deterrence b. Specific deterrence c. General deterrence d. Perceptual deterrence
11. When the deterrent effect is on the offender himself so he will not repeat the crime
committed, this is called?
a. Deterrence b. Special deterrence c. General deterrence d. Perceptual deterrence

12. Which of the following is the most important implication of Rational Choice theory?
a. Restorative justice c. Programs increases a person’s pro social bonds
b. Social programs targeting poverty d. Deterrence

13. Which theory says that people make logical choices about the circumstances under which to
commit crimes?
a. Rational choice b. Hedonistic calculus c. Criminology d. Rational
hedonism

14. ______involves weighing the possibility of pleasure derived from committing a crime against
the possibility of pain derived from getting caught and punished.
a. Rational choice b. Hedonistic calculu c. Criminology d. Rational hedonism

15. Why do some people like the rational choice theory?

a. It offers an explanation for a wide range of different crimes.
b. It lets you hone in on specific types of crime.
c. It applies to all age groups equally.
d. It makes sense of crimes of passion.

16. Long prison sentences and placing more people behind bars.
 a. Operationalizations of Specific Deterrence Strategy
b. Operationalizations of Incapacitation Strategies
c. Operationalizations of Situational Crime Prevention
d. Distinction Between Crime and Criminality

17. Who wrote the famous monograph 'On Crimes and Punishments' in 1764?
a. Charles-Louis Montesquieu c. Jeremy Bentham
b. Cesare Beccaria d. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

18. For classical criminologists, crime is solved through:

a. The arbitrary use of power, harsh punishment and control
b. An effective and efficient use of a just and fair process, culminating in punishing the
offender only as much as is necessary to pay for the crime they committed
c. Ensuring that the intentions of the offender are central to deciding whether to convict and
how much punishment to use
d. all of the above

19. Which two theorists are most commonly associated with 'rational choice theory'?
a. Cornish and Clarke c. Bentham and Beccaria
b. Rawls and Goring d. Cohen and Felson

20. Situational crime prevention suggests that we address:

a. Targets by making them more secure - 'target hardening' c. Crime scripts
b. Motivated offenders d. none of these