CHAPTER 4

Chapter 4 is probably one of the most important chapters in this text because it discusses the perspective on crime and justice that presently dominates our system. If you will recall, you have already read about the Classical School of Criminology in Chapter 1. Philosophers in this school over 200 years ago were responsible for the rational choice perspective on crime. It was the first attempt to try and create a universal response to crime that was fair and had a purpose that was designed to reduce crime through the deterrent effects of punishment. Further, there really were no excuses for criminal behavior with this viewpoint. If you did the crime you did the time. As classical theory evolved, it began to recognize that some people in the population had a reduced ability to make rational decisions and therefore should not be held accountable for their actions at least criminally. These included the mentally ill and children. The perspective is sometimes called the Neo-Classical School. You should review the Classical perspective at the beginning of this chapter.

The Classical School dominated our criminal justice system in America for about 100 years or until about the mid-1800's. About this time, scientists who are now referred to as the positivists, were beginning to use scientific methods to study human behavior. Positivists argued that people really did not have total control over their behaviors because of biological, sociological and psychological influences. Accordingly, not all decisions are rational based on free will. Therefore, judges should base their sentences not on the crime as with the Classical School but on the basis of the individual. This perspective really began to dominate our thinking after the 1930's when the criminal justice system began focusing on rehabilitation of offenders. At that time, most offenders were viewed as victims of their social environment and corrections officials were charged with diagnosing the specific problem and providing treatment. Most programs focused on overcoming poverty and related ills since poverty and crime were equated. Providing job training and increasing employment opportunities was the most common approach. This perspective dominated our criminal justice policies through the 1960's. All that changed radically in the 1970's. The reasons for this are discussed in the text but it is worth mentioning again. In the 1960's Americans began to experience a skyrocketing crime rate and civil unrest including race riots, prison riots and riots over the Vietnam War. America seemed to be coming apart at the seams and the public was afraid. Politicians entered the fray including Richard Nixon who declared a "war on crime." Professionally, the criminal justice field was rocked when a report prepared by Robert Martinson was published in 1974. Martinson had been hired by the State of New York in 1969 to find the best rehabilitation program to date which they planned to utilize in their treatment of offenders. Instead, after looking at over 250 studies, Martinson reported that "nothing works." Although not the first such report, the timing of this was significant because it gave the conservatives the ammunition they needed to show the world that rehabilitation did not work. Beginning then in the 1970's, through the 1980's and into the 1990's, America embarked on a new approach to crime by re-adopting the Classical School perspective though now termed the Choice School. Political slogans of the day included "do the crime, do the time;" "let the punishment fit the crime" and "lock them up and throwaway the key." The choice school emphasizes accountability for offender's choices regardless of their social environment. This meant, tougher sentencing, longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, lower parole release rates and even abolishment of parole in some states. The so called "three strikes your out" sentencing policy that developed in this atmosphere is a good example. It was designed to give offenders two chances and then on the third, send them to prison for life. As we have seen, the crime rate has dropped throughout the 1990's, our prisons are full and we are now seeing the rebirth of the rehabilitation movement. For example, some states are now requiring that non-violent drug offenders be sentenced to treatment rather than incarceration. Texas passed a law in 2003 in which drug offenders who are charged with possession of less than 5 grams of any drug must be offered probation and treatment. Further, states are beginning to scale back on their harsh sentencing laws enacted in the 1980's including three strikes laws. Parole release rates in Texas have been increasing.

The choice school is not really a theory of crime causation but is a philosophical perspective about the appropriate response to criminal behavior. We have already covered the crime theories in chapters six through ten.

In this Chapter, pay particular attention to the sections on general and specific deterrence because this is really the heart of rational choice. Rational choice assumes that people are rational. This is because they either observe others suffer punishment and so they avoid those kinds of behaviors themselves (general deterrence) or if they are caught and punished, they won't commit another crime because of their direct experiences with being punished (specific deterrence). After reading through these sections you may get the sense that research just does not support the idea that either specific or general deterrence strategies work. However, it just does not make sense that deterrence does not work at some level. There may be several reasons that these studies don't support deterrence. First, it is extremely difficult to design a deterrence experiment that has validity. This is because randomly selected control groups cannot be used and it is impossible to account for other variables that could influence the results. I ask students in class the question "does deterrence work?" and one student responded, "it does for me." I think he made a good point. I believe that most people are deterred from committing crimes particularly the more serious because they do not want to be punished. I also ask the question, "what if we had no punishments and thus no deterrents?" Students respond that we would be in chaos. Deterrent studies are weak at best and probably should not even be published. Secondly, there are some people in our population that are not deterred for various reasons. Chronic offenders can be imprisoned on numerous occasions and they keep coming back for more. Many offenders are not afraid of prison and in fact, find prison an easier life than life on the street so these people are not going to let the threat of prison stop them. I have known numerous offenders who, when given a choice, have taken a short prison term over a longer probation term because it would be "easier." Some find that the regimented life on the inside of a prison better suits their personality. They just cannot manage their life without the rigid rules. Perhaps with these offenders, corporal punishment would be more effective!

Death penalty foes have championed results of studies showing that capital punishment does not deter and if capital punishment proponents knew that, they would not approve the death penalty. The President of one of the many victims rights associations has pointed out that they are not seeking capital deterrence but instead see the death penalty as retribution for a heinous act. There has been unrelenting pressure on the justice system by a vocal but powerful minority to reduce the use of the death penalty with the ultimate goal of eliminating it altogether. The most recent poll shows that 65% of Americans favor capital punishment. The Supreme Court since the 1980's has been decidedly conservative and supportive of the death penalty but their recent prohibition on executing the mentally retarded is an indication of a more liberal swing. They are presently working on cases which have challenged the death penalties for those under 18 years of age. The decision will be out this fall and I predict that the court will raise the age of eligibility from 16 to 18. Update: The Supreme Court in the Summer of 2005 raised the minimum age to be eligible for the death penalty to 18.