Determining the most effective way to deter deliberate crimes, such as fraud, as opposed to impulsive crimes, such as crimes of passion, is a problem currently being debated in the legal community.
Topic
How to deter deliberate crimes — and how a utility-maximization principle reconciles two apparently opposing positions in the legal-scholarship debate.
Framework
Present Debate / Problem-Solution. The author lays out two opposing positions, then introduces an economic principle (utility maximization) that shows the positions are complementary, not antithetical.
Main Point
The two seemingly opposing positions in the deliberate-crime deterrence debate (societal-influence vs. individual-choice) are actually complementary when viewed through utility maximization, which holds that rational individuals choose actions that maximize expected utility. The optimal approach combines elements of both deterrence strategies.
P1: The two positions
Some scholars say deliberate crimes result from societal norms and institutions — so changing beliefs, increasing economic access, and rehabilitating offenders will reduce crime. Other scholars say deliberate crimes are individual choices — so increasing penalties and law enforcement is the best deterrence. Recent scholarship introduces an economic principle showing these positions are complementary.
P2: The utility maximization principle
Rational individuals will choose the action that maximizes expected utility — calculated by weighing each outcome's utility by its likelihood and summing. Decisions to commit crimes can be analyzed as rational economic choices.
P3: Both deterrence approaches affect the utility equation
A rational person commits a crime if expected criminal-activity utility exceeds expected lawful-activity utility. Both approaches reduce crime: increasing penalties/enforcement raises detection chance and cost (lowering expected criminal utility); increasing economic opportunity raises expected lawful utility. Both work; the optimal approach combines both.