Deterrence Theory

This paper has highlighted deterrence and power-control theory to provide insight into why shoplifting happens but fails to give an integrated approach to this behaviour. Situational Action Theory (SAT) is a promising theoretical approach to integrating both person-oriented and environment-oriented explanations to shoplifting. Hirtenlehner and Hardie (2016) address deterrence theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory as influential theories that often represent inconclusive results in terms of criminal conduct (315). This theory attempts to: capture the dependency of the impact of deterrence and self-control on personal and situational factors … while implies that controls only influence decision making when in a specific situation
either the actor’s personal moral attitudes or the moral rules of the setting encourage criminal conduct (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:316).
Hirtenlehner and Hardie hypothesize that deterrence and self-control can link to shoplifting through: (1) perceived deterrence interacts with personal morality, (2) the ability to exercise self-control interacts with exposure to delinquent peers in governing criminal conduct. SAT integrates person-oriented and environment-oriented explanations of criminal behaviour as the interaction between a person’s crime propensity and his or her criminogenic exposure initiates perception choices and guide one’s actions from there (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:316). Similar to power-control theory’s idea of the exposure of delinquent peers, SAT theorizes settings where criminogenic others, such as peers, are characterized by low detection and sanction risks. Here, the perception-choice process in relationship with a moral filter determines which action alternatives are taken into consideration. The results of this are the interaction between personal morality and moral norms of the specific setting (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:317). Integrating this theory with deterrence, it looks at the “outer-to-inner” process where the perceived detection certainty and sanction severity of moral norms conflict with the actor’s own personal moral rules. Situation action theory builds on this notion by the pure deterrence argument “that individuals, due to moral influences, do not always deliberate whether or not to commit an act of crime” (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:318). A pure deterrence approach ignores individuals who would never consider breaching the law and therefore are not dependent on the perception of risk of punishment. In contrast, integrating SAT with self-control, it looks at an “inner-to-outer” process where one’s ability to exercise self-control is “a person’s ability to align his/her behavior to his/her own moral values when faced with situational inducements to breach rules of conduct” (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:318). SAT highlights that exposure to criminogenic peers in shoplifting who are perceived to have favorable dispositions to shoplifting clearly weakens the moral context of the setting, increasing pressure to steal. The findings of Hirtenlehner and Hardie’s (2016) study provide strong empirical support for situational action theory.
Hypothesis one, testing the joint impact of morality and deterrence, highlights that deterrence was associated with shoplifting frequency more often when actors have weaker shoplifting-related morality. If the individual believed they would be caught did not significantly relate to shoplifting frequency in adolescents with strong shoplifting-related morality. This supports the argument that the “influence of deterrence perceptions on the frequency of shoplifting is stronger for respondents with weak shoplifting-related morality” (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:326). Hypothesis two, testing the joint impact of self-control and delinquent peers, highlights “for young people with a poor ability to exercise self-control, having criminogenic peers who are likely to be present in a shoplifting-relevant setting clearly makes a difference to shoplifting involvement” (Hirtenlehner and Hardie 2016:326). Therefore, the results support SAT’s understanding of shoplifting, which is not seen as an action alternative, regardless of the costs and benefits associated with the fact. The various types of control only become relevant when crime is not morally filtered from the range of action alternatives that are perceived by the actor (Hirtenlehner and Hardie
2016:327-238). Another example of situation action theory and shoplifting is displayed in Wikström, Tseloni, Karlis (2011) article: Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught?
The key hypotheses of this paper outline: (1) Individuals vary in their crime propensity, which is their level they perceive acts of crime an action alternative, (2) deterrence perceptions will influence the likelihood of crime involvement for those who are crime prone but will be irrelevant to those who are crime averse. It is crucial to determine how the role of deterrence experiences in crime propensity in terms of moral education and sensitivities to threats of punishment (Wikström et al. 2011: 405). Specifically, Wikström et al explained results that the subjects in their study more often assessed the risk of getting caught as higher for shoplifting than for vandalism. Complementing deterrence theory, the situational cues for individuals tempted to commit shoplifting are generally stronger influences to deter them from committing the crime (Wikström et al. 2011:410). Their environmental-orientation can influenced with deterrence theory as the environmental influences seen to deter shoplifting habits in the Weaver and Carroll study were visible personnel, mirrors cameras, and store
layouts. Shoplifting, therefore, can be understood through a possibility that the relationship between deterrence sensitivity and frequency of crime for shoplifting blinds the variation in the relationships within crime-prone groups specifically. Additionally, shoplifting may also occur due to the perceived consequences of being caught are too mild to affect their behavior (Wikström et al. 2011:416). This complements the ideas described in deterrence theory were punishments look to be certain, severe, and swift. Consequences for shoplifting tend to be based on store owner’s reports and often end in warnings or the criminal justice system stepping in, but taking time to punish. Therefore, if punishments for shoplifting are far in the future, not severe, or uncertain, it can be ineffective in deterring shoplifting.