NCJ Number
208400
Journal
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Volume: 20 Issue: 4 Dated: December 2004 Pages: 295-317
Date Published
December 2004
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This article examines two distinct theories on why deterrence fails.
Abstract
Criminal offenders can expect to experience both positive and negative outcomes from their criminal behavior. While the positive outcomes, such as money and thrill-seeking, tend to occur immediately, the negative outcomes associated with crime tend to be delayed by the operation of our modern criminal justice system. Some researchers speculate that crime occurs, among other reasons, because the threat of delayed negative outcomes does not motivate offenders to refrain from criminal activities. Two present-orientation perspectives account for the failure of potential consequences to deter criminal behavior: discounting and poor impulse control. Discounting involves the tendency to devalue the future while poor impulse control involves the failure to consider the future. The current study drew on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health to test these two theoretical accounts of the failure of deterrence. Participants were a sample of 6,504 adolescents who self-reported participation in criminal behavior and attitudes measuring poor impulse control and discounting. Results of statistical analyses indicated that both forms of present-oriented behavior predicted a variety of deleterious outcomes for youth. The findings revealed that discounting was better able to predict deliberative or future-related problem outcomes, while poor impulse control was a more accurate predictor of urge driven behaviors. Only poor impulse control predicted violent behavior and discounting was a better predictor of property offending. All findings were more pronounced for males than for females. Implications for policy include designing acquisitive crime prevention programs to emphasize an individuals’ standing in society and their prospects for the future. Future studies should test these two theories with larger samples of more serious offenders. References, tables