Theories of Deterrence

The three theories of deterrence are the deterrence theory, routine activities theory, and rational choice theory, and with each theory having ideas for how to lower the crime rate.

The first theory is the deterrence theory which arose from the classical criminology approach states “punishments should be proportional to the seriousness of offenses so that the cost of crime always exceeds its reward. Potential offenders then would be deterred – i.e., rational calculation would lead them to avoid committing crime” (Vold and Bernard and Snipes, 2002:176). This theory was commonly held as the method to follow for early criminologists, then another theory, positivism emerged as the leading method. However, the positivist theory died out and a contemporary classical approach theory came to the front of the methods to be used to examine crime. The reemergence of the theory came with deterrence being the focus on the theory.

In the late 1970s, a new approach was proposed, the routine activities theory. This theory states “rationally-calculating potential offenders respond to opportunities to commit crimes, and that these opportunities are systematically related to the ‘routine activities’ by which people live their lives” (Vold and Bernard and Snipes, 2002:176). This theory argues that individuals act differently from person to person, and some lifestyles are more likely to put an individual into situations that may cause them risk. This relates to modern times with individuals spending more time away from home, whether it is working longer hours or doing leisure activities, putting them at a higher risk of being the individual who is targeted for a robbery. This comes about since many individuals perform the same daily activities one day to the next. It provides potential offenders with more targets since so many individuals are spending more time away from their homes.

In the mid-1980s, the rational choice approach theory arose. This theory “developed a more complex view of how offenders in particular situations calculate their costs and benefits” (Vold and Bernard and Snipes, 2002:176-177). This theory assumes that offenders take into the consideration the risks and rewards of their actions. The rational choice theory assumes that there are always potential offenders that are willing to commit crimes when the rewards are higher than the risks. This theory proposes that raising the level of possible cost to the offender and lowering the chance of possible rewards of the criminal will make the situation less desirable to be committed.

The common theme of these three theories of deterrence is that they are all based on a human’s decision to choose. They all assume that individual’s will look at a given situation and decide whether or not to commit crimes. These theories assume that criminals are rationally thinking people which is not always the situation. These theories don’t take into consideration that individuals may get caught in situations that cause them to get extremely angered which may lessen the possibilities of thinking in a rational sense.