#1. Deterrence Theory: Three Characteristics
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
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Essays in Contemporary Criminological Theory: Explaining Criminals and Crime. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
