Behavioral Economics and the Issue of the Perception of Punishment: From Choice architecture to Critique of Behavioral paternalism

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MA of Criminal Law & Criminology

2 Assistant professor at University of Mazandaran

Abstract

The use of cognitive and behavioral science considerations is an undeniable necessity for more accurate analysis of criminal behaviors and improving the deterrent function of punishments. The knowledge of behavioral economics, relying on cognitive and behavioral sciences considerations, shows that the capacity of human cognitive powers is limited and this limited capacity is also involved with a wide range of cognitive biases and errors. These variables cause criminals (potential delinquent) to perceive the reality of punishment in a distorted form in many cases, and distance themselves from the classical logic of rational choice theory in their decisions to commit a particular crime (or engage in criminal activity). The recognition of the effectiveness of these cognitive variables on the relative disturbance on free will and calculator will can help to determine preventive (deterrent) practical strategies and can help to measure the risk of recidivism more accurately. This article, by relying on descriptive-analytical method, is going to investigate the capacities and possible challenges of the practical use of these insights in the field of criminal policy as the perception of punishment. Behavioral economics based on psychological insights suggests the idea of “choice architecture” and “nudge theory”. This research shows that distortion of the reality of punishment can be prevented in the minds of criminals in some cases by relying on new insights of behavioral economics in the field of deterrence. In this regard, supporters (favoritism) of the idea of choice architecture claim that they can lead people to make a better choice in a “free-spirited” way. However, this idea is faced with important critiques and it has a reductionism error in many ways. It can be said, at least, that uncritical exposure to it can face policies and ideological plans of crime control.

Keywords

References

  1. آریلی، دن، نابخردی‌های پیش‌بینی‌پذیر: نیروهای پنهانی که به تصمیم ما شکل می‌دهند، ترجمه رامین رامبد، تهران، مازیار، 1398 ش.
  2. آشوری، محمد، و مهدی صبوری‌پور، «مقایسه اثر شدت و قطعیت حبس بر بازدارندگی آن»، مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، سال دوم، شماره‌های 2ـ3، بهار و تابستان 1394 ش.
  3. اللّٰه‌وردی، فرهاد، و علی مهرابی، «عقلانیت جنایی؛ محدودیت‌ها و چالش‌ها (با تأکید بر جرائم خشونت‌بار)»، آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری، سال شانزدهم، شماره 17، بهار و تابستان 1398 ش.
  4. بهره‌مند، حمید، و زهرا ساکیانی، «تصمیم‌گیری مجرمان از منظر اقتصاد رفتاری و دلالت‌های آن در سیاست‌گذاری کیفری»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، سال هشتاد و پنجم، شماره 115، پاییز 1400 ش.
  5. تِیلِر، ریچارد اچ.،کج‌رفتاری: شکل‌گیری اقتصاد رفتاری، ترجمه بهنام شهائی، تهران، کتاب مهربان، 1396ش.
  6. تِیلِر، ریچارد اچ.، و کاس آر. سانستین، سُقُلمه؛ بهبود تصمیم‌ها پیرامون سلامتی، ثروت و شادی، ترجمه مهدی حبیب‌الهی و دیگران، تهران، شفاف، 1397 ش.
  7. تیموری، عباد، محسن رنانی، و عبدالحمید معرفی محمدی، «نقد انتخاب عقلانی از منظر رویکردهای رقیب: اقتصاد رفتاری، آزمایشگاهی و علوم مغزی»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های اقتصادی ایران، سال بیست و دوم، شماره 73، زمستان 1396 ش.
  8. صبوری‌پور، مهدی، عقلانیت در ارتکاب جرم، تهران، میزان، 1398 ش.
  9. غلامی، حسین، کیفرشناسی (کلیات و مبانی پاسخ‌شناسی جرم)، تهران، میزان، 1396 ش.
  10. فارل، هنری، «چرا افکار آخرین نوبلیست اقتصاد چندان به نفع دموکراسی نیست؟»، ترجمه
    محمد معماریان، 1397 ش.، قابل دسترسی در وبگاه ترجمان علوم انسانی به نشانی: <https://tarjomaan.com/neveshtar/8961>.
  11. کانمن، دانیل، تفکر، سریع و کند، ترجمه فروغ تالوصمدی، تهران، دُرّ دانش بهمن، 1397 ش.
  12. محمودی جانکی، فیروز، «حمایت کیفری از اخلاق»، مقاله در: علوم جنایی (مجموعه مقالات در تجلیل از استاد دکتر محمد آشوری)، تهران، سمت، 1396 ش.
  13. مولاینیتن، سندهیل، و الدار شفیر، فقر احمق می‌کند، ترجمه سیدامیرحسین میرابوطالبی، تهران، ترجمان علوم انسانی، 1398 ش.
  14. نجفی ابرندآبادی، علی‌حسین، «پیشگیری عادلانه از جرم»، مقاله در: علوم جنایی (مجموعه مقالات در تجلیل از استاد دکتر محمد آشوری)، تهران، سمت، 1396 ش.
  15. یزدیان جعفری، جعفر، و الهه خیرمند، «پدرسالاری کیفری؛ مفهوم، انواع، مشروعیت و مصادیق آن در حقوق کیفری»، فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی، سال دوازدهم، شماره 45، تابستان 1394 ش.
  16. Apel, Robert, “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime”, Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 5(1), Oct. 2021.
  17. , “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence”, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 29(1), 2012.
  18. Bandura, Albert & Claudio Barbaranelli & Gian Vittorio Caprara & Concetta Pastorelli, “Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71(2), 1996.
  19. Cavadino, Michael & James Dignan, “Penal Policy and Political Economy”, Criminology & Criminal Justice, Vol. 6(4), Sage Publications, Nov. 2006.
  20. Cornish, Derek & Ronald Clarke, The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.
  21. Druckman, James N., “The Politics of Motivation”, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, Vol. 24(2), Informa UK Limited, June 2012.
  22. Fishbane, Alissa & Aurelie Ouss & Anuj K. Shah, “Behavioral nudges reduce failure to appear for court”, Science, Vol. 370(6517), Nov. 2020.
  23. Guan, Xin & T. Wing Lo, “Restrictive Deterrence in Drug Offenses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis of Mixed Studies”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, Aug. 2021.
  24. Halpern, David, Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference. Reprint, WH Allen, 2016.
  25. Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47(2), Mar. 1979.
  26. Le Grand, Julian & Bill New, Government Paternalism: Nanny State or Helpful Friend?, 1st, Princeton University Press, 2015.
  27. Lodge, Milton & Charles S. Taber, The Rationalizing Voter, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  28. Nadelhoffer, Thomas, “The Threat of Shrinking Agency and Free Will Disillusionism”, in: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Lynn Nadel (Eds.), Conscious Will and Responsibility: A Tribute to Benjamin Libet (Oxford Series in Neuroscience, Law, and Philosophy), Oxford University Press, 2010.
  29. Nagin, Daniel S., “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century”, Crime and Justice, Vol. 23, The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
  30. Nagin, Daniel S. & Greg Pogarsky, “An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity”, Criminology, Vol. 41(1), Feb. 2003.
  31. Nettle, Daniel & Kenneth Nott & Melissa Bateson, “‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft”, PLoS One (Public Library of Sciences), Ronald Noë (Ed.), Vol. 7(12), Dec. 2012.
  32. Pickett, Justin T. & J.C. Barnes & Theodore Wilson & Sean Patrick Roche, “Prospect Theory and Criminal Choice: Experiments Testing Framing, Reference Dependence, and Decision Weights”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 37(6), 30 Jan. 2019.
  33. Pickett, Justin T. & Sean Patrick Roche, “Arrested Development”, Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 15(3), 12 May 2016.
  34. Pickett, Justin T. & Thomas A. Loughran & Shawn Bushway, “Consequences of Legal Risk Communication for Sanction Perception Updating and White-Collar Criminality”, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 12(1), Mar. 2016.
  35. Pickett, Justin T., “Using Behavioral Economics to Advance Deterrence Research and Improve Crime Policy: Some Illustrative Experiments”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 64(12), 21 Mar. 2018.
  36. Pogarsky, Greg & Alex R. Piquero, “Can Punishment Encourage Offending? Investigating the ‘Resetting’ Effect”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 40(1), Feb. 2003.
  37. Pogarsky, Greg & Sean Patrick Roche & Justin T. Pickett, “Heuristics and Biases, Rational Choice, and Sanction Perceptions”, Criminology, Vol. 55(1), Feb. 2017.
  38. Pogarsky, Greg & Sean Patrick Roche & Justin T. Pickett, “Offender Decision-Making in Criminology: Contributions from Behavioral Economics”, Annual Review of Criminology, Vol. 1(1), 13 Jan. 2018.
  39. Pogarsky, Greg & Shaina Herman, “Nudging and the Choice Architecture of Offending Decisions”, Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 18(4), 24 Oct. 2019.
  40. Quigley, Muireann, “Libertarian paternalism, nudging, and public policy”, in: Kalle Grill & Jason Hanna (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Paternalism, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.
  41. Rizzo, Mario J. & Glen Whitman, Escaping Paternalism: Rationality, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy (Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society), Cambridge University Press, 2020.
  42. Sharma, Dhruv & Myles Kilgallon Scott, “Nudge; Don’t Judge: Using Nudge Theory to Deter Shoplifters”, 11th European Academy of Design Conference Proceedings: The Value of Design Research, 2016.
  43. Slovic, Paul & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, “The affect heuristic”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 177(3), 2007.
  44. Thaler, Richard H., “Nudge, Not Sludge”, Science, Vol. 361(6401), 2018.
  45. Titmuss, Richard Morris, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, Ann Oakley & John Ashton (Eds.), New York, New Press, 1997.
  46. Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, Science, Vol. 185(4157), 27 Sep. 1974.
  47. Tversky, Amos & Derek J. Koehler, “Support Theory: A Nonextensional Representation of Subjective Probability”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101(4), Oct. 1994.
  48. van Gelder, Jean-Louis & Henk Elffers & Danielle Reynald & Daniel Nagin (Eds.), Affect and Cognition in Criminal Decision Making (Crime Science Series), London-New York, Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group, 2015.
  49. Wacquant, Loïc, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, Duke University Press, 2009.
  50. Whichard, Corey & Richard B. Felson, “Are Suspects Who Resist Arrest Defiant, Desperate, or Disoriented?”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 53(4), 25 Feb. 2016.
  51. Zamir, Eyal & Doron Teichman, Behavioral Law and Economics, New York, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics