Classical deterrence theory revisited: An empirical analysis of Police Force Areas in England and Wales
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14773708211072415 |
| Author | Juste Abramovaite,Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay,Samrat Bhattacharya,Nick Cowen |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Classical deterrence theory
revisited: An empirical analysis
of Police Force Areas in
England and Wales
Juste Abramovaite
Centre for Crime, Justice and Policing and Institute for Global
Innovation, University of Birmingham, UK
Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay
Centre for Crime, Justice and Policing and Institute for Global
Innovation, University of Birmingham, UK
Samrat Bhattacharya
Amazon.com Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA
Nick Cowen
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln
Abstract
The severity, certainty and celerity (swiftness) of punishment are theorised to influence offending through
deterrence. Yetc elerityis rarely included in empirical studies of criminal activity and the three deterrence
factors have never been analysed in one empirical model. We address this gap with an analysis using
unique panel data of recorded theft, burglary and violence against the person for 41 Police Force
Areas in England and Wales using variables that capture these three theorised factors of deterrence.
We find that the three factors affect crime in different ways. Increased detection by the police (certainty)
is associated with reduced theft and burglary but not violence. We find that variation in the celerity of
sanction has a significant impact on theft offences but not on burglary or violence offences. Increased aver-
age prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only. We account for these results in terms of data chal-
lenges and the likely different motivations underlying violent and acquisitive crime.
Corresponding author:
Nick Cowen, University of Lincoln, Room BH3211, Bridge House, Brayford Campus, Lincoln, LN5 7BN, UK.
Email: ncowen@lincoln.ac.uk.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy
or position of Amazon.com Inc.
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2023, Vol. 20(5) 1663–1680
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14773708211072415
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Keywords
Celerity, certainty, detection, deterrence, sentencing, severity
Introduction
The classical theory of deterrence developed from the work of three modern philoso-
phers: Hobbes (1651), Beccaria (1872) and Bentham (1789). They believed that if pun-
ishment is severe, certain and swift, a rational individual will weigh potential gains and
losses before engaging in illegal activity and will be discouraged from breaking the law if
the loss is greater than the gain. Severity of punishment is believed to be one of the key
elements implemented by the criminal law to encourage citizens to obey the law.
Certainty of that punishment implies that the sanction is more likely to be implemented
against the offender if the crime is committed. Further, it has been proposed that the pun-
ishment must be swift in order to deter the crime. Classical deterrence theory consists of
these three key components, the so-called “3Cs”(Severity, Certainty and Celerity) of
punishment. Of the three components of the deterrence theory, severity has often been
measured by length of prison sentence and certainty by detection rates or arrest rates
(for the relevant papers in this area please see the section Previous Research).
Curiously, celerity, as a component of deterrence, has been rarely tested empirically.
Yet policymakers commonly assume that access to speedy justice is crucial both for redu-
cing crime and satisfying the interests of victims.
For example, in the United Kingdom, New Labour governments, following Tony
Blair’s slogan, ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’, made access to swift crim-
inal justice a key policy priority (Morgan, 2008). One influential government strategy
document promised that ‘cases that need the court process will be dealt with fairly but
as quickly as possible’while introducing wider use of ‘summary’procedures including
dealing with cases just a day after initial charge (Home Office, 2004, 2006). Using
remarkably similar language and rationale, the Coalition Government (2010–2015) fol-
lowing New Labour proclaimed: ‘Justice needs to be swift if it is to be effective.
Offenders need to be made to face the consequences of their actions quickly, using effect-
ive, locally-based solutions’(Ministry of Justice, 2012). This aim to streamline the
process of bringing offenders to justice has continued under contemporary
Conservative governments (HM Treasury, 2015).
The importance of detection rates, severity of sentences and swiftness of the justice
system together with socio-economic determinants of crime are all widely discussed
by the public, politicians and academics. There is, however, significant disagreement
about the major driving forces for criminal behaviour and what constitutes effective
crime reduction approaches. Some believe law enforcement plays a major role while
others focus on root causes such as socio-economic conditions and the prevalence of
moral norms relating to common criminal acts (Agnew, 2015; Cook and Zarkin, 1985;
Engelen et al., 2016; Wikström et al., 2011). Even among scholars who see a substantial
role for law enforcement and criminal justice sanctions, there is debate about the relative
importance of different factors associated with various sentencing approaches. The con-
ditions under which heavier punishment (e.g. lengthy prison sentences and heavier fines)
can be traded against lower probabilities of detection are discussed in some early
1664 European Journal of Criminology 20(5)
To continue reading
Request your trial