SITUATIONAL DETERRENCE : FEAR DURING THE CRIMINAL EVENT by

The link between situational crime prevention and deterrence theory can be found in the fear experienced by the offender in certain crime situations. This paper starts with an examination of deterrence theory. It is argued that perceptual deterrence is flawed in three respects. First, it is not time-specific enough, being incapable of grasping the short-term impact of variations in sanctions. Second, it does not specify the concrete contingencies in which crimes are committed. Third, it does not measure the emotional component of deterrence. Situational deterrence is simply the intimidating effect of the dangers involved in a specific crime situation. It is a fact that some offenders experience fear when they go into action. It is also a fact that this fear leads to some criminal projects being aborted, and often stops offenders before they can achieve their ends. However, there is a limit to the influence of this emotion. Many offenders succeed in mustering their courage and plunge into action despite the danger. Also, some enjoy the excitement generated by fear. Situational risks are important components of crime prevention, not only because they are taken into account by offenders in their cost-benefit calculations, but also because they can trigger uncontrollable fear, forcing the offender to flee empty-handed.

[1]  Stanley H. Cohen.  The Felon , 1972, The Broad Arrow.

[2]  J. Bentham.  An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , 1945, Princeton Readings in Political Thought.

[3]  T. Gabor.  Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies , 1994 .

[4]  J. Gibbs.  Crime, punishment, and deterrence , 1975 .

[5]  D. Walsh,et al.  Heavy Business , 1986 .

[6]  Raymond Paternost ' Er.  DECISIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN AND DESIST FROM FOUR TYPES OF COMMON DELINQUENCY: DETERRENCE AND THE RATIONAL CHOICE PERSPECTIVE , 1989 .

[7]  F. Wertham.  The Criminal Personality. Vol. 1, A Profile for Change , 1977 .

[8]  K. Williams,et al.  Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. , 1986 .

[9]  R. Paternoster,et al.  The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues , 1987 .

[10]  Ronald V. Clarke,et al.  “Situational” Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice , 1980 .

[11]  Harold G. Grasmick,et al.  Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior. , 1980 .

[12]  R. Homel.  Policing and punishing the drinking driver , 1988 .

[13]  Ted Chiricos,et al.  Perceived Risk and Deterrence: Methodological Artifacts in Perceptual Deterrence Research , 1982 .

[14]  J. E. Conklin,et al.  Robbery and the criminal justice system , 1972 .

[15]  W W Rankin,et al.  Fear and courage. , 1988, Journal of pediatric nursing.

[16]  L. Sherman.  Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence , 1990, Crime and Justice.

[17]  Norval Morris,et al.  Punishment and Deterrence , 1974 .

[18]  D. Nagin,et al.  The Preventive Effects of the Perceived Risk of Arrest : Testing an Expanded Conception of Deterrence , 1991 .

[19]  Trevor Bennett,et al.  Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender , 1984 .

[20]  H. Ross.  Law, Science, and Accidents: The British Road Safety Act of 1967 , 1973, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[21]  R. Lejeune.  The Management of a Mugging , 1977 .

[22]  The Social Organization of Armed Robbery , 1969 .

[23]  P. Cook.  Research in Criminal Deterrence: Laying the Groundwork for the Second Decade , 1980, Crime and Justice.

[24]  Offenders' choice of target: Findings from victim surveys , 1987 .

[25]  A. Schneider,et al.  Deterrence and Juvenile Crime: Results from a National Policy Experiment , 1989, American Political Science Review.

[26]  J. Gibbs,et al.  The deterrence doctrine and the perceived certainty of legal punishments. , 1977, American sociological review.

[27]  Charles R. Tittle,et al.  Sanctions and social deviance: The question of deterrence , 1980 .

[28]  M. Cusson,et al.  L’analyse stratégique et quelques développements récents en criminologie , 2005 .

[29]  Ross Homel,et al.  Drivers who drink and rational choice: random breath testing and the process of deterrence , 1993 .