Writing assignment
Dee2019
classicaltheoryonline.pptxClassical (Basis of Choice and Rational Choice)
Cesare Beccaria
An Essay on Crime and Punishment
1764
1
Rational Choice Theory: roots in the classical tradition
A child of the Enlightenment and a student of math in his university days, Beccaria wrote An Essay on Crime and Punishment in 1764 (predating criminology).
Beccaria was somewhat radical in his time (e.g., he opposed torture and the death penalty).
In the current era, conservatives tend to be advocates of this theoretical framework (rational choice theory, deterrence theory).
2
FREE WILL: the most basic assumption
Free will: Humans are free will actors. In other words, humans are rational, intelligent beings.
Humans weigh the benefits and consequences of future actions before making the decision of whether or not to engage in those actions.
Humans want to pursue maximum pleasure and self-interest (utilitarianism is reflected here).
Think of Beccaria as a student of math and view humans as economic actors.
3
If a person wants to buy a car, they will want to pursue maximum pleasure (their ideal car) and minimize pain (the cost).
Crime is the same.
4
FELICIFIC CALCULUS
Humans weigh the benefits and consequences of future actions before making the decision of whether of not to engage in them. This can be applied to crime.
If the pain is greater than the gain, the person will tend to refrain from the action.
If the gain is greater than the pain, the person will tend to engage in the behavior.
5
Example
A taxpayer is filling out an annual tax form. If knowing that the underreporting of income is punished by a small penalty, the person might be more willing to cheat than if the person feels that tax evasion is usually punished by a large fine or a mandatory prison sentence. If people feel they won’t get caught as there is little enforcement, they will be more likely to engage in the criminal behavior.
6
Thinking about Beccaria in modern terms, the gains of crime (e.g., money, revenge, power, what Katz calls the seductions of crime, etc.) are varied.
The pains of crime are incarceration, shame, loss of voting rights, future employment problems, etc.
Modern thinkers note that the gains are more concrete (e.g., money) in that the pains of crime are often unknown (will the person be arrested, convicted, incarcerated?) and refer to events further in the future.
7
Points to ponder:
1) Does this apply to property crime (the person rationally weighs money against their perception of punishment)?
2) Does this apply to violent crime (the person is rational when committing murder) or is some violence less rational? Think of a crime of passion as an example. Is the person operating under rational thinking?
3) Does this apply to all crime?
4) Or, are humans not free will actors and rational?
8
To deter crime: the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain.
At the time, it was supportive of reform. Punishments were quite severe, including death, torture, and involuntary servitude. Beccaria opposed the death penalty and torture, feeling that it had no place in a civil society and that it overshot the mark.
Punishment is JUSTIFIED because of its practical usefulness. Punishment is not acceptable on the grounds of vengeance. Punishment is not for rehabilitation. Punishment is for deterrence.
9
A rational scale of punishment must be developed. The rational scale of justice must be legislatively based (and not judicially based). In his writing Beccaria noted that punishment couldn’t be dependent on a variable factor such as whether a judge was having a good digestion day. People had to know the punishment in advance (rational).
Justice had to be equal for all (rational).
In other words, people need rational punishment to respond rationally.
In modern terms, this theoretical perspective supports determinate sentencing, rather than indeterminate sentencing.
10
Variables of Punishment
Severity: how tough is the punishment
Certainty: how sure the person is that he/she will be punished
Celerity: how fast, or promptly, the person is punished
11
Beccaria: more of an advocate of certainty and celerity
Modern conservatives (e.g., James Q. Wilson and Ernest Van Den Haag) started arguing for severity, suggesting that rehabilitation did not work (starting in the mid-70s). With the revival of this type approach, punishment focused on severity (e.g., increased incarceration rates, three strikes, etc.)
12
Questions to ponder
Assume you accept the notion that humans are free will actors. You can imagine one of two scenarios: you are a parent trying to produce good behavior in a child or you are designing criminal justice policy.
Which of these three components (severity, certainty, celerity) or combination of components are most effective in modifying behavior? Which do humans respond to the most?
13
14
