Criminology Lecture 11 & 12 - Rational Choice Theory PDF

October 7^th^, 2024 Criminology- Lecture 11 **[Classical Criminology and Rational Choice Theory] *or deterrence theory that came out of Beccaria, Utilitarian etc.*** ***Here on out will be on the next test*** *[Reports]- description of the world\...not what it ought to be but how the world is, [...

October 7^th^, 2024 Criminology- Lecture 11 **[Classical Criminology and Rational Choice Theory] *or deterrence theory that came out of Beccaria, Utilitarian etc.*** ***Here on out will be on the next test*** *[Reports]- description of the world\...not what it ought to be but how the world is, [commands]-* ***Reports and command implication⬇️*** **[Rational Choice Theory]** 1. [Humans are hedonistic beings]- *humans are dictated entirely by pleasure and pain: I.e. everything they do is determined by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.* *[**Utility**- the balance of pleasure over pain ]* ***Jeremy Bentham** "NATURE has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as determine what we shall do."* 2. [Humans are rational]- *the use of instrumental reasoning- gold directed reasoning, Logic, analytic thinking, etc. They use these instrumental reasoning to process evidence about how to maximize **utility**- how to get pleasure and avoid pain.* *"Shouldn't invite two economists in the same place as they take shit too seriously."* Economist axioms: - Transitivity- *preference over A and B is transitive, preferring A over C as well. (Coffee, tea, and energy drink comparison)* - Independence- *Preference cannot change upon the introduction of something* *new? (Subway example in the café)* **Research** **Rationality in Divorce** 3. [Humans are naturally free as individuals]- *this is the opposite of determinism- they make their own behavioral choices as they have free will. They're not predestined by their genetics or social environment but rather by their free will ability.* 4. [So, crimes occurred when.]..- *utility maximizing people with free will commit crime by choice when they think the benefits outweigh the costs.* 5. [Key dimensions of punishment? --] *Have to use punishment as a political obstacle to ensure that the cost of crime outweighs the benefits. According to the **Mordor's Rational Choice** Theory, the punishments have to be **swift** (celerity), **certain**, **severe- sufficiently.*** *Prescribed punishment- punishment on the books* **[Critiquing Rational Choice Theory]** 1. [Assumes rationality and calculation]- *Assumes they stop to use instrumental reasoning before making choices. They even asked inmates, and a large chunk of people didn't even think about the risk of getting caught. ⬇️⬇️*  *Can they even do a good job of calculating (benefits and costs)?* *Anchoring number- irrelevant but it's to change your perception, for e.g. arbitrary high anchor- "higher than 79% or lower than 79%", and arbitrary low aching would be "higher than 19% or lower than 19%."* *People perception of arbitrary stuff like cup size and anchors not the assumption aforementioned.* *People are bad decision makers so informing them can limit their **utility.*** 2. [Neglects] [possible effects of ambiguity (and "apprehension lotteries")-] *people are ambiguity averse- they like to make decisions when things are clear. Rational theories ignore this. The risk should be clear. If you don't know the probability of something, you'd assume 50/50 so if you're wrong, you're not too far off.* 3. [Assumes relationship beteeen objective and subjective punishment levels-] *Link between what is actually happening (**objective- real and actual**) and what people think is happening (**subjective- perceived, believe what is in your head**). Theory argue that the real level of punishment is what people perceived to be the punishment so you can't use policy to deter people. However, people don't do a very good job of perception. There's a large gap between reality and people's perception.* ***VII. Again:** "[Punishment cannot act any farther than in as far as the idea of it, and its connection with the offense, is present in mind.] The idea of it, if not present, cannot act at all; and then the punishment itself must be inefficacious. [Now, to be present, it must be remembered, and to be remembered it must have been learnt."]* 4. [Focuses on costs of crime-] *Policy only focus on cost.* 5. [Role of morality? --] *Social utility- whatever benefits the greatest number, in terms of pleasure, is morally right.* 6. [Gives little attention to individual difference or competing causal factors*-* ]*They don't do a good job of explaining and accounting for individual differences in cognition.* Most people who don't want to think hard are in **bold**. Correct answers of rational thinkers are in *italics.* 1. A bat and a ball cost \$1.10 in total. The bat costs \$1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? **10 cents**...*0.5* 2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? *5 mins*... correct, **100 minutes** 3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? **24 days**... *47 days* ***Continued: 9^th^ October 2024- Lecture 12*** **[Rational Choice and Life Chances ]** 1. [Equal Freedom] *Rational choice people believe people are equally free to decide how to behave.* *But, is everybody equally free or are some more free than others? What's freedom- the availability of choices? No, it's actually the quality of choices; high quality choices for one to make. Both qualitative and quantitative. However, this varies based on your social position in life.* *E.g. James Verone robbed the RBC bank of \$1 to attain medical care in jail.* 2. [Marginal utility -] ***on the test and is one of the hardest questions*** *The idea that the value or pleasure that you get from each additional unit of consumption declines, diminishes and goes down as the total number of units you already have, increases.* *E.g. if person A has \$1, person B has \$20, and the victim has \$1. If person A robs the victim, his wealth increases by 100% while, if person B robs the victim, he only accumulates 5% increased wealth.* *The more units you have, the more pointless it is to commit crime.* **[Prior Research Findings on the Empirical Validity of Rational Choice Theory ]** 1. [Macro vs. perceptual] *Macro research focuses on whether or not objective punishment, certainty celerity, is related to crime rates. Using aggregate punishment data to predict crime rates.* *Perceptual research is at the individual level- it is what people think. It's about whether or not people think the certainty and severity is higher, are less likely to offend.* 2. [Experience vs. threat of punishment ] *General and specific deterrence* *Experience- being slapped by the criminal justice system: research on this suggests that most of the time, it's criminogenic as it makes it worse.* *Instrumental type variable analysis. Green and Wink findings* - Actual threat of punishment *Threat of punishment- warning. Consistent large findings that this works as the actual threat of punishment [reduces crime].* *E.g. DUI checkpoints substantially reduce drunk drivers.* ***Insert image details**- police size does reduce crime. Having police officers out and about largely reduces the threat of punishment.* - Initial deterrence decay *Benefits of the fevers are short lived- only lasts for a short period of time then it goes away.* - Heuristic signs of threat *Artificially change people minds without changing reality. Playing on people minds about the severity of punishment.* *The perception of threat goes up when it's more visible. E.g. bright orange ticket tells one that enforcement is happening; inanimate police presence reduce speeding.* - Perceived threat of punishment - The certainty principle- ***on the test*** *Certainty: Perceived probability of getting caught- it's the [only one that matters for deterring behavior. ]* *Perceived severity is substantially smaller as it matters almost not at all.* - Formal vs. informal sanctions *Informal sanctions matters just as much, if not more, than formal sanctions. People are more concerned with their parents, etc, being mad at them than the formal sanctions.* **Sanction paradox** *Threatening to punish reduces crime but actually punishing doesn't work and can even make it worse. Threat of punishment reduces bad behavior. Have to be able to bluff.* 3. [Link between objective and subjective punishment levels] *E.g. 10/20 life law being enacted in Florida. A survey that was issued, the findings suggested that 80% of the people didn't know what it was. You can't deter people if they don't know. Can't change people minds about what policy does then you're screwed.* *"Unless the perceptions themselves are manipulable by policy, the desired deterrent effect will not be achieved."* *Certain, swiftness, and severity of punishment in people's minds.* *To measure certainty- Arrest certainty: Conviction certainty* *To measure severity- percent sentenced to* *prison; average maximum sentence length* *To measure celerity- swiftness of punishment* *How to influence people's perception? It's heavily limitless to specific situations.* **[Cognitive Judgements vs. Emotions]** *People with the same perceptions won't have the same emotional reactions/responses. Deterrence theory and research overlooks this fact, like Hobbes and Beccaria.* ***(1:06)**- Certainty will only matter if it made people afraid.* *"Of all passions, that which inclineth men least to break the laws, is fear. Nay, expecting some generous natures, it is the only thing, when there is appearance of profit or pleasure by breaking the laws, that makes men keep them." (Hobbes, 1957 \[1651\]: 195).* *"Do you want to prevent crimes?...See to it that men fear the laws and fear nothing else. For fear of the laws is salutary..." (Beccaria, 1963 \[1794\]: 94).* **[\ ]** **[Bifurcated Theory of Emotional Deterrence]**