Committing a Crime - The Offender's Decision (From Criminal Justice System - A Social-Psychological Analysis, P 49-67, 1982, Vladimir J Konecni and Ebbe B Ebbesen, ed. - See NCJ-87097)

• NCJ Number: 87100
• Author(s): J S Carroll
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 19 pages
• Sale Source: W H Freeman and Co
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study examines how offenders conceptualize their crimes, how goals are established and realized, and how the choice about whether or not to commit a crime is made, with particular attention to the validity of the deterrence hypothesis.

Abstract

Rather than attempt to devise a new theory of criminal behavior or to integrate the traditional theories, this study focuses on one issue that encompasses both a response of the criminal justice system to criminal behavior and a response of potential criminals to the action of the criminal justice system, that is, deterrence. The deterrence hypothesis states that an increase in the certainty or severity of punishmennt for crime reduces the incidence of crime. Most research investigating the deterrence hypothesis has relied on statistics that aggregate across large numbers of offenders and offenses. Such studies suffer from a number of methodological problems. Several different approaches have been used to address the deterrence issue from the perspective of the person considering criminal opportunities. None of these has amassed substantial empirical bases as yet, but a direction for future research has been set. Carroll (1978) conceptualized criminal behavior as including a decision process loosely organized in two stages: the evaluation of a crime opportunity on four dimensions (certainty of gain, amount of gain, certainty of punishment, and severity of punishment) and the combination of these four dimensions into a judgment about the desirability of the crime opportunity. To test the dynamics of this model, interviews were conducted with 23 adult male offenders in a State prison, 13 adult male nonoffenders in a college class, 23 male juvenile offenders, and 20 male nonoffender high school students. The model was found to be reliable; however, more than 70 percent of the subjects focused principally on only one dimension. Fifty-one percent focused on amount to gain, 24 percent on severity of punishment, 18 percent on certainty of gain, and 8 percent on certainty of punishment. Offender/nonoffender and juvenile/adult groups did not differ substantially in their use of information. The findings suggest that crime reduction might better be accomplished by lowering the payoff for crime and raising the payoff for legitimate behavior rather than through deterrence. Fifty-two references are listed.