Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught?

Do people comply with the law because they fear the consequences? Guided by the theoretical framework of Situational Action Theory we argue that most people abide by the law not because they fear the consequences but because they do not perceive crime as an ‘action alternative’. We propose that the potential influence of threats of punishment on people’s law abidance is specific to those who regularly are motivated and consider committing acts of crime. Using data from the Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+) we empirically explore the relationships between crime propensity, deterrence perceptions and crime involvement for four specific types of crime: shoplifting, theft from cars, vandalism and assault. The findings support the notion that the influence of deterrence perceptions on an individual’s crime involvement is dependent on his or her crime propensity. Moreover, and crucially, results suggest that deterrence perceptions are largely irrelevant for those who lack a propensity to commit acts of crime (or specific acts of crime).

[1]  P. Wikström,et al.  Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People's Urban Crime , 2012 .

[2]  P. Wikström.  Does Everything Matter? Addressing The Problem Of Causation And Explanation In The Study Of Crime , 2011 .

[3]  Clemens Kroneberg,et al.  The interplay of moral norms and instrumental incentives in crime causation , 2010 .

[4]  P. Wikström.  Explaining Crime as Moral Actions , 2010 .

[5]  P. Wikström,et al.  What Drives Persistent Offending? The Neglected and Unexplored Role of the Social Environment , 2009 .

[6]  P. Wikström,et al.  The Role of Self-Control in Crime Causation , 2007 .

[7]  P. Wikström,et al.  The Explanation of Crime: Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime , 2006 .

[8]  Travis C. Pratt,et al.  The Empirical Status of Deterrence Theory: A Meta-Analysis , 2006 .

[9]  P. Wikström,et al.  Adolescent Crime: Individual Differences and Lifestyles , 2006 .

[10]  Avshalom Caspi,et al.  Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime , 2004 .

[11]  D. Nagin,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF DETERRENCE: CHEATING, SELF‐SERVING BIAS, AND IMPULSIVITY* , 2003 .

[12]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[13]  A. Hirsch,et al.  Criminal deterrence and sentence severity : an analysis of recent research , 1999 .

[14]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century , 1998, Crime and Justice.

[15]  Martin L. Puterman,et al.  Analysis of Patent Data—A Mixed-Poisson-Regression-Model Approach , 1998 .

[16]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. , 1997, Science.

[17]  Alex R. Piquero,et al.  Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending , 1996 .

[18]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  PERSONAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL CONTROL: THE DETERRENCE IMPLICATIONS OF A THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL OFFENDING* , 1994 .

[19]  D. Nagin,et al.  Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime , 1993 .

[20]  I. Marshall,et al.  RISK PERCEPTIONS AMONG SERIOUS OFFENDERS: THE ROLE OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT* , 1992 .

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

[22]  Michael R. Gottfredson,et al.  A general theory of crime. , 1992 .

[23]  Richard Bellamy,et al.  Crimes and punishments. , 1963, The Hastings Center report.

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

[25]  F. Zimring,et al.  Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control , 1973 .