Applying Deterrence Theory to Victims
For more than two centuries, since the time of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, the origina- tors of the classical school of free will or rational choice theory, a fierce debate has raged over whether would-be offenders are deterred by the prospects of apprehension, conviction, and punish- ment. Rarely, if ever, is the debate about deterrence applied to past and potential victims.
Simply put, deterrence theory holds that swift and sure punishment is the solution to the crime problem. According to the tenets of specific deterrence, punishing offenders teaches them a les- son they won’t forget, so they will not repeat the forbidden act. According to the doctrine of gen- eral deterrence, publicly punishing offenders makes them into negative role models that serve as a warning to others to avoid committing similar misdeeds.
Proponents and opponents argue whether offenders really learn the intended lesson (especially in jails and prisons, which can serve as “graduate schools” that churn out individuals with advanced degrees in criminality). Do would-be lawbreakers really mull over their decisions rationally, think twice, and decide not to commit illegal acts? Or do they often act impulsively, disregarding the pos- sible consequences in the heat of passion? Do others who hear about the crime and the punishment that followed truly make the connection, think, “That could be me!” and become “scared straight” and dissuaded from violating the law?
TH E O N GO IN G C ON T RO VE RSY O VE R S HARE D RE S P ON S IB I L I T Y 161
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
Applying the principles of general deterrence to law-abiding people, many parallel questions arise: Do victims learn a lesson from their mistakes? Do they realize how they may have facilitated, pre- cipitated, or even provoked criminal activities? Do they vow to not repeat these errors, to take “dos and don’ts” tips more seriously, and to change their careless or even reckless ways? Or do they disregard the persistent threats, continue to take their chances, plow ahead stubbornly, and become repeat victims, suffering serial victimizations (two or more incidents during a relatively short time)?
And does their suffering serve as a warning to the general public about “how not to behave”? Does news media coverage of specific incidents strike fear in the hearts and minds of large num- bers of would-be victims, making them think twice and conclude that the potential costs out- weigh the benefits? Do members of this audience exercise their free will and rationally decide the particular risky behavior engaged in by a victim isn’t worth pursuing, and do they then choose a more prudent course of action? Does the fright- ening prospect of becoming a casualty lead to constructive responses, such as incorporating risk avoidance and risk management precautions into lifestyles?