Applying Behavioral Principles to Crime

It is the hallmark of a behavioral approach to utilize data to test and adjust interventions, and newer law enforcement practices of problem- oriented and community-oriented policing are examples of this. Programs such as School Resource Officers and Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety have strong empirical support. Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety is a law enforcement approach whereby police use spatial and temporal analyses to decide where to allocate resources, such as parking an unmanned police car near a busy intersection or increasing officers in a high crime area.

The increased visibility of enforcement results in more community contacts and better relationships, so effective deterrence is not necessarily correlated with an increase in number of tickets or arrests. From a behavioral perspective, more visible law enforcement serves as a discriminative cue to prospective offenders to change the cost-benefit ratio of choices. Thus, the basic behavioral principle of the stimulus delta is being applied successfully. This behavioral term refers to a stimulus that indicates that in its presence, a response will not be reinforced. In this case, when a police officer is nearby, a crime does not occur. Research confirms that the visible presence of more policing and equipment decreases the incidence rates of numerous high-profile categories of crimes such as hijacking aircraft and mass shootings. Furthermore, that a successful, well-publicized criminal event is often followed by an increase in subsequent attempts highlights the importance of attention to influence behavior in our culture.

Another basic behavioral principle is that behavior that is positively reinforced (i.e., rewarded) is strengthened and continued, whereas behavior that is punished will be decreased or temporarily suppressed. Overall, punishment of criminal acts is best regarded as conditional in the United States. Since not all crimes result in arrest and punishment, law enforcement and legal processes do not always influence cost-benefit analysis in a predictable way. Inconsistent sentencing, effective defense lawyers, and plea bargains may result in the delivery of intermittent reinforcement, which makes a behavior harder to extinguish. An offender may decide that a crime is worth the prison time if apprehended.

The three strikes laws (i.e., more permanent punishment for repeat offenders with three or more separate instances of felonious criminal behavior) are examples of intermittent reinforcement, until one experiences that last strike. Often adept at applying behavioral principles themselves, successful criminals change their offending behaviors based on the probability of being caught, perceived profit, and current relevant laws.

Lengthening the time between the act and consequence significantly lessens the strength of the punishment and likely decreases possible deterrence. As a further complication, although mainstream society considers imprisonment, community service, house arrest, and fines to be punishment, these conditions may or may not be costly or aversive enough to the offender to decrease the probability of choosing a criminal behavior. If incarceration, probation, and fines quickly and consistently followed the commission of a crime, recidivism rates would be significantly decreased.

However, incarceration itself may be reinforcing. During detention and incarceration, offenders are provided a structured environment (i.e., fed, provided a bed to sleep in) and have the opportunity to learn from other criminals how to use maladaptive behaviors in a purposeful way, develop strategies to cope in correctional settings better, or set up a network to commit criminal acts more effectively. When this occurs, the likelihood of future criminal behavior increases rather than decreases (i.e., prison becomes criminogenic— increases the likelihood of risk for crime).