|
Abstract
|
Deterrence theory states that fear of sanctions secures compliance with the law. Empirical research on the deterrent effect of legal sanctions has remained inconclusive though. This applies especially to perceptual deterrence studies. Most of them are cross-sectional in nature and rely on measures of self-reported previous offending, which implies that they actually explain past criminal behaviour from current perceptions of risk. However, such a temporal ordering of the concepts is more congruent with experiential effects according to which previous criminal involvement lowers subsequent risk perceptions rather than depicting deterrent relationships. The few longitudinal studies that have attempted to disentangle experiential and deterrent effects are based on samples from North America. Their common finding is that experiential effects exist and that they are substantially larger than the deterrent effect. Most of them reject the notion of deterrence. This work contributes to the discussion by for the first time addressing the experience-deterrence issue with panel data collected in the UK.
RESULTS show that associations between current risk estimates and prior offending found in cross-sectional studies reflect chiefly experiential effects. Evidence in support of deterrence remains very limited.
Empirical criminological enquiry frequently relies on cross-sectional observational studies to test explanations of criminal conduct. Determining causality in cross-sectional research is, however, a highly problematic endeavour. There is a consensus that at least three criteria must have been met before a statistical association between two variables measured at the same point in time can be interpreted in causal terms: (1) there must be significant covariation between the variables of interest; (2) the correlation between the two variables must not be spurious, that is, continue to exist when relevant third variables are controlled; (3) the explanatory variable must precede the explained variable in time (Finkel, 1995; Taris, 2000).1
Perceptual deterrence research - survey studies investigating the impact of perceived sanction risk on criminal behaviour - is heavily affected by the problems mentioned above. However, before exploring this issue, some general clarifications are necessary.
Deterrence can be thought of as the avoidance or omission of an act of crime because of the fear of negative consequences, with this fear being dependent on the perceived certainty of intervention and the expected severity of punishment (Wikström, 2008). Classical deterrence theory assumes that fear of legal sanctions causes people to refrain from crime (Andenaes, 1974; Gibbs, 1975; Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). It is based on three premises that are at the heart of rational choice theory: (1) human action is motivated by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, (2) decisions to offend are made by balancing the costs and benefits of various action alternatives, and (3) individuals choose and act with at least minimal rationality. People will violate the law when the expected benefits of doing so outweigh the expected costs. The role of legal sanctions in preventing crime is thus to ensure that the cost of offending does indeed exceed its benefit....
Language: en |