You are here

RASYONEL BİR TERCİH OLARAK SUÇ: KLASİK OKUL DÜSÜNCELERİNİN SUÇU AÇIKLAMA VE ÖNLEME KAPASİTESİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Crime as a Rational Choice: An Evaluation of the Capacity of Classical School of Criminology in Explaining and Preventing Crime

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Classical School of Criminology argues that crime is a result of individuals’ conscious and deliberate decisions like other behaviors. According to this philosophy, individuals evaluate the alternative courses of action and make a cost-benefit analysis before engaging in a specific behavior. At this point, in Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy, behavior is seen under strong influence of pleasures and pains, the two masters of human behavior, and it is also true for criminal behavior. Individuals tend to maximize their pleasures and minimize their pains. Criminal behaviors emerge as alternatives “high in benefit” and “low in cost” and this situation decisively affects individuals’ preferences. For this reason, the effective way of preventing crimes is making crime an irrational choice by “increasing the cost of crime” through punishment. In this regard, punishments should be certain, swift, and proportionately severe enough to deter crimes. These characteristics are also necessary for a criminal justice system to be of deterrent capacity. However, since we know that human reason and rationality is limited and not all crimes are committed as a result of rational decision-making processes, we should expect to see some variations of deterrence, even in an ideal criminal justice system, based on the characteristics of individuals and criminal events. In this regard, we should consider the deterrence doctrine with its limitations in the prevention of crime.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Klasik Okul, aynen diğer insan davranısları gibi suç teskil eden davranısların da, bireylerin özgür iradeleriyle verdikleri rasyonel kararlar neticesinde ortaya çıktığını savunur. Bu felsefeye göre insanlar, herhangi bir adım atmadan önce davranıslarının sonucunda ne kazanıp ne kaybedeceklerini değerlendirir ve bir anlamda kar-zarar hesabı yaparak hareket ederler. Bu noktada, Bentham’ın faydacılık felsefesi içinde insan davranıslarına hükmeden iki güç olarak tanımlanan hazlar ve zevkler ile acılar ve elemler bireylerin tercihlerini sekillendiren temel saikler olarak ortaya çıkarlar ve suçlu davranısı da bu bakıs açısından kaynaklanır. Zira bireyler, alacakları kararlar ve ortaya koyacakları tercihlerle acılarını hafifleterek hazlarını ve zevklerini artırma eğilimindedirler. Suç teskil eden davranıslar genellikle birey açısından “getirisi çok, götürüsü az” alternatifler oldukları için minimum çaba ile maksimum faydanın elde edildiği seçenekler olarak bireylerin tercihlerini etkilerler. Bu nedenle de Klasik Okul’a göre suçu önlemenin en kestirme yolu, cezalar yoluyla “suçun maliyetini artırarak” suçu rasyonel bir tercih olmaktan çıkarmaktır. Cezaların caydırıcı olabilmesi için kesin, çabuk ve suça uygun bir orantılılıkta siddetli olması gerekir ve bir ceza adalet sisteminin caydırıcı olabilmesi için bu özelliklere sahip olması sarttır. Ne var ki, insan iradesinin ve rasyonalitesinin sınırsız ve mutlak olmadığı, ayrıca bütün suçların da rasyonel bir tercih neticesinde alınan kararlarla gerçeklesmediği durumu göz önüne alındığında, caydırıcılığın kisiden kisiye ve suç tipine göre belli bir değisim göstereceği ve bu nedenle de caydırıcılık doktrininin suçu önleme noktasında sınırlılıkları olan bir felsefe olduğu unutulmamalıdır.
91-121

REFERENCES

References: 

Akers, Ronald L., (2000), Criminological Theories: Introduction,
Evaluation, and Application, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing
Company.
Andenaes, Johannes, (1968), “Does Punishment Deter Crime?”, Criminal
Law Quarterly, Vol.11, pp.76–93.
Bailey, William C. and Lott, Ruth P., (1976), “Crime, Punishment and
Personality: An Examination of the Deterrence Question”, The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.67, No.1, pp. 99–109.
Beccaria, Cesare, (1764/1963), On Crimes and Punishments,
(Translation: H. Paolucci), Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill.
Beccaria, Cesare, (2003), “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments.” In
Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew (eds), Criminological Theory:
Past to Present – Essential Readings, Second Edition, pp.20–22.
Becker, Gary S., (1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic
Approach,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.76, No.2, pp. 169–217.
Beirne, Piers and Messerschmidt, James, (1991), Criminology, San
Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Rasyonel Bir Tercih Olarak Suç: Klasik Okul Felsefesinin Suçu Açıklama ve
Önleme Kapasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi
115
Bentham, Jeremy (1979), “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals
and Legislation.” In Joseph Jacoby (ed.), Classics of Criminology,
Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Company, Inc. , pp.61-64.
Bentham, Jeremy and Bozovic, Miran, (1995), The Panopticon Writings.
London and New York: Verso.
Brown, Stephen E.; Finn-Aage, Esbensen, and Gilbert, Geis, (1998),
Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context, Third Edition,
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
Cavender, Gray, (1979), “Special Deterrence: An Operant Learning
Evaluation”, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1979), pp.
203–215.
Cordella, Peter and Siegel, Larry, (1996), Readings in Contemporary
Criminological Theory, Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Cullen, Francis T. and Agnew, Robert, (2003), Criminological Theory:
Past to Present – Essential Readings, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury
Publishing Company.
Durkheim, Emile, (1979), “The Normal and the Pathological”, pp.64-68.
In Joseph E. Jacoby (ed), Classics of Criminology, Oak Park, IL:
Moore Publishing Company, Inc.
Dolu, Osman, ve Büker, Hasan, (2009), “Caydırıcılığın Sınırları: Caydırıcılık
Eksenli Suç Önleme ve Mücadele Politikalarına Elestirel bir
Yaklasım,” Polis Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 11, Sayı 3, ss.1-22.
Einstadter, Werner and Henry, Stuart, (1995), Criminological Theory: An
Analysis of Its Underlying Assumptions, Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
Friend, Celeste, (2006), “Social Contract Theory: Thomas Hobbes”,
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Elektronik olarak ulasılabilecek
adres: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm#SH2a (Erisim tarihi:
08.02.2008).
116 Polis Bilimleri Dergisi: 11 (4)
Geis, Gilbert, (1955), “Pioneers in Criminology VII: Jeremy Bentham
(1748–1832)”, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, (Jul. - Aug., 1955), pp. 159–171.
Gibbs, Jack P., (1995), “The Notion of Control and Criminology’s Policy
Implications,” pp. 71–89, In Hugh D. Barlow, Crime and Public
Policy: Putting Theory to Work, Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc.
Grasmick, Harold G. and Bryjak, George J., (1980), “The Deterrent
Effect of Perceived Severity of Punishment”, Social Forces, Vol. 59,
No. 2. (Dec., 1980), pp. 471–491.
Gül, Serdar Kenan, (2009), “An Evaluation of the Rational Choice
Theory in Criminology”, Girne American University Journal of Social
and Applied Science, Vol.4, No.8, pp.36-44.
Hanes, Sharon M., (2005), Crime and Punishment in America: Primary
Sources, Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Hobbes, Thomas, (1660), The Leviathan (Chapter XVIII: of The Rights
of Sovereigns By Institution). Elektronik olarak ulasılabilecek adres:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathanc.
html#CHAPTERXVIII (Erisim tarihi: 08.02.2008).
Jefferey, C. R, (1985), “Criminology as an Interdisciplinary Behavioral
Science”, pp.44-54, In Frank H. March ve Janet Katz (eds), Biology,
Crime and Ethics. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
Jeffery, C. R., (1965), “Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory”, The
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 56,
No. 3. (Sep., 1965), pp. 294–300.
Jensen, Gary F., Erickson, Maynard L., ve Gibbs, Jack P., (1978),
“Perceived Risk of Punishment and Self-Reported Delinquency”,
Social Forces, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Sep., 1978), pp. 57–78.
Johnston, Norman B., (1955), “Pioneers in Criminology V: John
Haviland (1792-1852)”, The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,
and Police Science, Vol. 45, No. 5, (Jan. - Feb., 1955), pp. 509-519.
Rasyonel Bir Tercih Olarak Suç: Klasik Okul Felsefesinin Suçu Açıklama ve
Önleme Kapasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi
117
Johnston, Norman B., (1964), “John Haviland, Jailor to the World”, The
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 23, No. 2,
(May, 1964), pp. 101-105.
Kenkel, Donald S., (1993), “Drinking, Driving, and Deterrence: The
Effectiveness and Social Costs of Alternative Policies”, Journal of
Law and Economics, Vol. 36, No. 2. (Oct., 1993), pp. 877–913.
Kızmaz, Zahir, (2007), "Cezaevinin ve Hapsetmenin Suçu Engellemedeki
Etkisi", Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı:17
(Nisan 2007), ss. 44–68. Elektronik olarak erisilebilecek adres:
http://sbe.dumlupinar.edu.tr/17/44-68.pdf
Lithner, Klas, (1968), “Pioneers in Criminology: Karl Roeder: A
Forgotten Prison Reformer”, The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Jun., 1968), pp.
219-226.
Logan, Charles H., (1972), "General Deterrent Effects of Imprisonment",
Social Forces, Vol. 51, No. 1. (Sep., 1972), pp. 64–73.
Mendes, Silvia M., (2004), “Certainty, Severity, and Their Relative
Deterrent Effects: Questioning the Implications of the Role of Risk in
Criminal Deterrence Policy”, The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No.
1, 2004, pp.59–74.
Nagin, Daniel, (1978), “General Deterrence: A Review of the Empirical
Evidence”, In Blumstein, Alfred, Cohen, Jacquelin, and Nagin,
Daniel, (ed) Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of
Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, pp.95-139.
Normandeau, Andre, (1970), “Pioneers in Criminology: Charles Lucas.
Opponent of Capital Punishment.” The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, Vol.61, No.2, pp. 218-228.
118 Polis Bilimleri Dergisi: 11 (4)
Pate, Anthony M. ve Hamilton, Edwin E., (1992), “Formal and Informal
Deterrents to Domestic Violence: The Dade County Spouse Assault
Experiment”, American Sociological Review, Vol.57, No.5, pp. 691–
697.
Paternoster, Raymond, (1989), “Absolute and Restrictive Deterrence in a
Panel of Youth: Explaining the Onset, Persistence/Desistance, and
Frequency of Delinquent Offending.” Social Problems, Vol.36, No.3,
pp. 289–309.
Paternoster, Raymond and Piquero, Alex, (1995), “Reconceptualizing
Deterrence: An Empirical Test of Personal and Vicarious
Experiences”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol.32,
No.3, pp. 251–286.
Piliavin, Irvin.; Gartner, Rosemary; Thornton, Craig.; and Matsueda,
Ross L., (1986), “Crime, Deterrence, and Rational Choice." American
Sociological Review, Vol.51, No.1, pp.101-119.
Roth, Mitchel P., (2005), Crime and Punishment: A History of the
Criminal Justice System, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Saygılı, Abdurrahman, (2004), “Mikro-Đktidarın Bir Fiziği: Hapishane”,
Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi [Đnternet Baskısı], Cilt
53, Sayı 2, ss.177-196. Online erisilebilecek adres:
http://auhf.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/auhfd-arsiv/AUHF-2004-53-
02/AUHF-2004-53-02-Saygili.pdf
Schmalleger, Frank, (2004), Criminology Today: An Integrative
Introduction, Third Edition Update. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson–
Prentice Hall.
Schneider, Anne L. and Ervin, Laurin, (1990), “Specific Deterrence,
Rational Choice, and Decision Heuristics: Applications in Juvenile
Justice”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol.71, No.3, pp.585–601.
Sherman, Lawrence W., (1992), Policing Domestic Violence:
Experiments and Dilemmas, New York: The Free Press.
Rasyonel Bir Tercih Olarak Suç: Klasik Okul Felsefesinin Suçu Açıklama ve
Önleme Kapasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi
119
Sherman, Lawrence W., (1993), “Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance:
A Theory of the Criminal Sanction”, Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, Vol.30, No.4, pp. 445–473.
Sherman, Lawrence W. and Berk, Richard A., (1984), “The Specific
Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault”, American
Sociological Review, Vol.49, No.2, pp. 261–272.
Sherman, Lawrence W.; Smith, Douglas A.; Schmidt, Janell D.; and
Rogan, Dennis P., (1992), “Crime, Punishment, and Stake in
Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence”,
American Sociological Review, Vol.57, No.5, pp. 680–690.
Shoemaker, Donald J., (2000), Theories of Delinquency: An Examination
of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior, Fourth Edition, New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, Larry J., (2001), Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and
Typologies, Seventh Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Stafford, Mark C. and Warr, Mark, (1993), “A Reconceptualization of
General and Specific Deterrence”, Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, Vol.30, No.2, pp.123–135.
Stafford, Mark C.; Gray, Louis N.; Menke, Ben A.; and Ward, David A.,
(1986), “Modeling the Deterrent Effects of Punishment”, Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 49, No.4, pp. 338–347.
Tittle, Charles R. and Rowe, Alan R., (1974), "Certainty of Arrest and
Crime Rates: A Further Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis", Social
Forces, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 455–462.
Toby, Jackson, (1957), "Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity:
Complementary Factors in the Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums",
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol.48,
No.1, pp. 12–17.
120 Polis Bilimleri Dergisi: 11 (4)
Williams, Frank P. and McShane, Marilyn D., (1988), Criminological
Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Williams, K. R. and Hawkins, R., (1986), “Perceptual Research on
General Deterrence: A Critical Review”, Law and Society Review,
Vol.20, No.4, pp.545–572.
Zimring, Franklin E., (1978), “Policy Experiments in General Deterrence:
1970–1975”, In Blumstein, J. Cohen, ve Nagin, Daniel (ed.)
Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal
Sanctions on Crime Rates, Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences.
Zimring, Franklin E. and Hawkins, Gordon J., (1973/1976), Deterrence:
The Legal Threat in Crime Control, Phoenix Edition, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com