Advertisement

How Offender Decision-making Can Inform Policing: A Focus on the Perceived Certainty of Apprehension

  • Chae M. JaynesEmail author
  • Thomas A. Loughran
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that the perceived certainty of apprehension is a far more effective deterrent than the severity of sanctioning. In concordance with this, many policing strategies have focused on increasing the certainty of apprehension as a key tactic in crime reduction. This chapter describes how recent advances in criminological understanding of perceived certainty are thought to influence offender decision-making. We then illustrate how these findings may inform policing and suggest potential avenues for collaborations between researchers and practitioners to further enhance understanding of offender decision-making and guide evidence-based policing.

Keywords

Deterrence Certainty Perception updating Tipping points Ambiguity 

References

  1. Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1999). The code of the street. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  3. Anwar, S., & Loughran, T. A. (2011). Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 49(3), 667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apel, R. (2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beccaria, C. (1986[1764]). On crimes and punishments. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s operation ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1999). A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Studies on Crime & Crime Prevention, 8(3), 7–26.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, C. (1978). Deterrence and accident compensation schemes. University of Western Ontario Law Review, 17, 111.Google Scholar
  13. Camerer, C. & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4), 325–370.Google Scholar
  14. Chamlin, M. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the arrest–crime relationship: A further examination of the tipping effect. Justice Quarterly, 8(2), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chilton, R. (1982). Analyzing urban crime data: Deterrence and the limitations of arrests per offense ratios. Criminology, 19(4), 590–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corsaro, N., Hunt, E. D., Hipple, N. K., & McGarrell, E. F. (2012). The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence: An evaluation of the high point drug market intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeAngelo, G., & Hansen, B.. (2013). Life and death in the fast lane: Police enforcement and roadway safety. Available at SSRN:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1940134
  18. Durlauf, S., & Nagin, D. (2011a). Imprisonment and crime can both be reduced? Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Durlauf, S., & Nagin, D. (2011b). The deterrent effect of imprisonment. In P. J. Cook, J. Ludwig, & J. McCrary (Eds.), Controlling crime: Strategies and tradeoffs (pp. 43–94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eck, J. E., Gersh, J. S., & Taylor, C. (2000). Finding crime hot spots through repeat address mapping. In V. Goldsmith, P. G. McGuire, J. B. Mollenkoph, & T. A. Ross (Eds.), Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice (pp. 49–64). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, W. N., & Owens, E. G. (2007). COPS and crime. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1–2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geerken, M. R., & Gove, W. R. (1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law and Society Review, 9(3), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T. (1999). The effects of prison sentences on recidivism (pp. 4–5). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.Google Scholar
  24. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Fulton, B. (2000). Intensive probation in probation and parole settings. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195–204). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. In Compendium of effective correctional programs (Volume 1, Chapter 4). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24(3), 837–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Heaton, P. (2010). Understanding the effects of anti-profiling policies. The Journal of Law and Economics, 53(1), 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Kelling, G. L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 147–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Waring, E. J. (2001). Reducing gun violence: The Boston gun project’s operation ceasefire (Research report). Washington, DC: US National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  33. Kilmer, B., & Midgette, G. (2019). Using certainty and celerity to deter crime (RAND Social and Economic Well-Being Working Paper WR-1190-1-NIAAA). Santa Monica: RAND. Available at  https://doi.org/10.7249/WR1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klick, J., & Tabarrok, A. (2005). Using terror alert levels to estimate the effect of police on crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levitt, S. D. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. American Economic Review, 87(3), 270–290.Google Scholar
  36. Levitt, S. D. (2002). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effects of police on crime: Reply. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1244–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lochner, L. (2007). Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. American Economic Review, 97(1), 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: Implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology, 49(4), 1029–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loughran, T. A., Pogarsky, G., Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. (2012). Re-examining the functional form of the certainty effect in deterrence theory. Justice Quarterly, 29(5), 712–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loughran, T. A., Nguyen, H., Piquero, A. R., & Fagan, J. (2013). The returns to criminal capital. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 925–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marvell, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (1996). Specification problems, police levels, and crime rates. Criminology, 34(4), 609–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D. A., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (2001). When crime pays: Capital, competence, and criminal success. Social Forces, 79(3), 1035–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCrary, J. (2002). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime: Comment. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1236–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J. M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy. Justice Quarterly, 23(02), 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 23, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27(3), 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 115–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nagin, D. S., Solow, R. M., & Lum, C. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology, 53(1), 74–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. National Institute of Justice (2020). Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved 2020 from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=32
  52. National Research Council (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. In W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.). Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and social sciences and education (Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nguyen, H., Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Fagan, J., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Institutional placement and illegal earnings: Examining the crime school hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(2), 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: Evaluating project safe neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 223–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 765–824.Google Scholar
  56. Paternoster, R., & Piquero, A. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), 251–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pickett, J. T., Loughran, T. A., & Bushway, S. (2015). On the measurement and properties of ambiguity in probabilistic expectations. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(4), 636–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. A. (2016). The policy-to-perceptions link in deterrence: Time to retire the clearance rate. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 777–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pogarsky, G., Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: The neglected linkage in deterrence theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Police Executive Research Forum. (2008). Violent crime in America: What we know about hot spots enforcement. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  62. Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2018). Celerity and deterrence. In D. S. Nagin, F. T. Cullen, & C. L. Jonson (Eds.), Deterrence, choice, and crime: Contemporary perspectives (Advances in criminological theory) (pp. 187–210). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Raphael, S., & Ludwig, J. (2003). Prison sentence enhancements: The case of project exile. In J. Ludwig & P. J. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy: Effects on crime and violence (pp. 251–286). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  64. Saltzman, L., Paternoster, R., Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1982). Deterrent and experiential effects: The problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(2), 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. Crime and Justice, 12, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995a). Does patrol prevent crime? The Minneapolis hot spots experiment. In K. Miyazawa & S. Miyazawa (Eds.), Crime presentation in the urban community. Boston: Kiuwer.Google Scholar
  67. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995b). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shi, L. (2009). The limit of oversight in policing: Evidence from the 2001 Cincinnati riot. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomas, K. J., Hamilton, B. C., & Loughran, T. A. (2018). Testing the transitivity of reported risk perceptions: Evidence of coherent arbitrariness. Criminology, 56(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tita, G., Riley, K. J., Ridgeway, G., Grammich, C. A., Abrahamse, A., & Greenwood, P. W. (2010). Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  73. Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. (1974). Certainty of arrest and crime rates: A further test of the deterrence hypothesis. Social Forces, 52(4), 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S. M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42(2), 283–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams, K. R., & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society Review, 20(4), 545–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, O. W. (1956). Basic police policies. The Police Chief, November: 28–29.Google Scholar
  79. Wilson, J. M., & Chermak, S. (2011). Community-driven violence reduction programs: Examining Pittsburgh’s one vision one life. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(4), 993–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wilson, T., Paternoster, R., & Loughran, T. (2017). Direct and indirect experiential effects in an updating model of deterrence: A research note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yu, J., & Liska, A. E. (1993). The certainty of punishment: A reference group effect and its functional form. Criminology, 31(3), 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations