#beccaria

Cesare Beccaria

The desert had no roads, no landmarks, not even any scenery. Just an unending expense of yellow under an unending expense of blue.

As such, it took Rebecca longer than it should have to notice the growing hole in the center of her vision. It's just glare. It's just afterimages from the sun. It's nothing. It's fine. She blinked furiously and kept driving, willing it to go away, refusing to give in-- until phantom fireworks started flickering across the sky.

Read on AO3 or...

By Cesare Beccaria

This is probably the first theory you’ll learn about in a criminology class since Beccaria contributed a lot to the classical school of thought to which deterrence theory is apart of. Remember: Deterrence theory assumes that humans are rational, calculating, and hedonistic (self-interested).

Here’s the first proposition that we will explore today: Punishments should be severe, swift, and certain to effectively deter someone from crime.  

So, first off, what does it mean to be deterred? Well, put simply, it means that someone refrains from doing something. In the context of this post, someone decides not to commit a crime by weighing the costs and benefits of their actions (because only rational people can do this). 

Cost-benefit analysis in regards to deterrence theory is basically someone looking to see if the consequences of their criminal behavior are greater than the benefits they could get from engaging in the act. 

Example:

So let’s say I want to steal a candy bar from a grocery store. Being a rational human being, I would stop and ask myself whether this $0.50 piece of chocolate is worth, let’s say, a potential $100 fine and a ban from this store (which is close to, and most convenient to me and my household). According to Deterrence theory, I, as a logical person, would probably say that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that I will not commit the crime. To me, a $0.50 candy bar isn’t worth a potential $100 fine and a ban from a store close to me. Not to mention my peers would know me as a thief. Here, I was successfully deterred by the consequences.

As an extension, let’s say if I get caught, the punishment would be a slap on the wrist and that all the associates will know my face. Let’s further say that I am in a different state and that it is a known fact that the cameras don’t work in the store. As a rational person, I would steal the candy bar because the costs (slap on the wrist and my identity known to associates) do NOT outweigh the benefits (a chocolate candy bar). What’s more, I don’t live in the state so my reputation will not be negatively impacted, and security is not as tight. Here, I was not deterred.

You’ll notice that this is a very simple explanation of the term “deter.” We will discuss the types of deterrence in a different post. 

So now let’s move on to the three characteristics of deterrence! Let’s start with their definitions:

Severity

The magnitude or intensity of punishment

Celerity (Swiftness)

How quickly punishment follows the commission of the offense

Certainty

How likely it is to be caught and punished if one has committed a criminal offense

To be deterred, a punishment must be swift, certain, and severe. This means that you have to have all of these characteristics for a punishment to be effective. If one is missing, crime will continue to occur. Why is this?

If you are certain to get a punishment in a timely manner (swiftly), but the punishment is not severe enough, then the person will continue to commit the crime

Think of stealing a car and almost immediately getting arrested and convicted (certainty) and being quickly punished (swiftness) with a $10 fine (lack of severity).

If you are certain to get a severe punishment, but it is not enacted swiftly, a person will continue to commit crime.

Think of stealing that same car and almost immediately getting caught (certainty), and then being punished with a 3 year prison sentence (severity). But instead of a being immediately punished (lack of swiftness), you are likely to be punished in about 2 years.

If you are likely to get a severe punishment in a timely manner, but these are not certain (you’re unlikely to get caught and punished), the person will continue to commit the crime.

Think of that same car being stolen. You will get caught and punished swiftly with a 3 year prison sentence, but you are not always guaranteed this due to... let’s say the police’s horrible response rate in the area of question.

So that’s about it in regards to the three characteristics of Deterrence Theory. Let me know if you have any questions or corrections for me! 

[What’s next?]

Reference

This is probably the first paradigm (school of thought) you will be introduced to in a criminology class. This post will give you a general idea of what theories under this paradigm look at to explain crime. 

Themes:

Free will and rational deliberation 

You commit crime by choice

Cost-benefit analysis

Does the cost of committing crime outweigh the benefits?

If so, no crime will be committed

If not, crime will be committed

Principle Themes

Human beings are

Rational

Calculating

Hedonistic (self-serving)

Maximize pleasure and minimize costs and pain (for society)

Well known philosophers include Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Both were utilitarian philosophers who believed that social benefits should be maximized for society.

Cesare Beccaria contributed a bit to the Classical Paradigm:

Wrote Essay on Crimes and Punishment

Condemned 

Obscure laws

Unlimited judicial power

Confessions by torture

Punishments that exceed the harm caused

Important components

Rebuked

Irrationality

Cruelty

Capriciousness of existing laws

The judicial and penal system

Proposed a series of reforms that were more humane, rational, efficient, and fair

Codify laws

Write laws down

Reduces discretion

Use of sworn and freely given testimony

Elimination of the death penalty for select crimes

Equal treatment of citizens

Create a system that is swift, certain, and severe enough so that costs outweigh benefits

Thomas Hobbes was actually pretty important too.

He said that if everyone were “free,” then there would be a “war against all.” This meant that if everyone was free to do what they wanted, people could not only rob others, but they could be robbed by the person who robbed them. Because of this, he argued that people were actually not free because they were in fear of others.

  He created the social contract

Posited that we should give up some of our freedom to a governing body to obtain protection 

Basically lose some liberty to not get your ankles broke

Hopefully this sounds familiar (we let the criminal justice system - police, courts, corrections - to enact “justice” instead of taking it upon ourselves to do so)

The state’s function is to use as little force as possible to ensure compliance with the terms of the social contract

The point is to minimize pain and maximize utility

Here are a few other philosophers

Rousseau

Voltaire

Montesquieu

Lock

Three of the most well known theories under this paradigm are (If I have started a series on any of these, I’ll link to the first post of those theories.):

Deterrence Theory

Rational Choice Theory

Routine Activities Theory

So there it is. This is an overview and generally what I learned in class. 

Reference