Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:41:13.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling the individual and collective dynamics of the propensity to offend

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2010

J.-P. NADAL ,
M. B. GORDON ,
J. R. IGLESIAS  and
V. SEMESHENKO
J.-P. NADAL
Affiliation:
Centre d'Analyse et de Mathématique Sociales (CAMS, UMR 8557 CNRS - EHESS), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 54 Bd. Raspail, 75270 Paris Cedex 06, France email: jean-pierre.nadal@ehess.fr Laboratoire de Physique Statistique (LPS, UMR 8550 CNRS, ENS, UPMC Univ. Paris 6, Paris Diderot Paris 7), Ecole Normale Supérieure, 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
M. B. GORDON
Affiliation:
Laboratoire TIMC-IMAG (UMR 5525), Université de Grenoble I, Domaine de La Merci, Jean Roget 38706 La Tronche, France
J. R. IGLESIAS
Affiliation:
Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 91501-970 Porto Alegre, Brazil
V. SEMESHENKO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. Córdoba 2122, 1120 AAQ Buenos Aires, Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce a general framework for modelling the dynamics of the propensity to offend in a population of (possibly interacting) agents. We consider that each agent has an ‘honesty index’ which parameterizes his probability of abiding by the law. This probability also depends on a composite parameter associated to the attractiveness of the crime outcome and of the crime setting (the context which makes a crime more or less likely to occur, such as the presence or not of a guardian). Within this framework we explore some consequences of the working hypothesis that punishment has a deterrent effect, assuming that, after a criminal act, an agent's honesty index may increase if he is caught and decrease otherwise. We provide both analytical and numerical results. We show that in the space of parameters characterizing the probability of punishment, there are two ‘phases’: one corresponding to a population with a low crime rate and the other to a population with a large crime rate. We speculate on the possible existence of a self-organized state in which, due to the society reaction against crime activities, the population dynamics would be stabilized on the critical line, leading to a wide distribution of propensities to offend in the population. In view of empirical works on the causes of the recent evolution of crime rates in developed countries, we discuss how changes of socio-economic conditions may affect the model parameters, and hence the crime rate in the population. We suggest possible extensions of the model that will allow us to take into account more realistic features.

Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 21 , Issue 4-5: Criminality , October 2010 , pp. 421 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barthelemy, M., Berestycki, H., Elffers, H. & Nadal, J.-P. A statistical model for criminal behavior under social interactions, manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1968) Crime and punishment: An economic approach. J. Political Econ. 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berestycki, H. & Nadal, J.-P.Self-organised critical hot spots of criminal activity. Euro. J. Appl. Math. DOI:10.1017/S0956792510000185 (in press).Google Scholar
Bourguignon, F., Nunez, J. & Sanchez, F. (2003) What part of the income distribution does matter for explaining crime? The case of Colombia. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 1 (2–3), 440–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, R. V. & Felson, M. (1993) Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 5, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. E. & Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, I. (1975) The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death. Am. Econ. Rev. 65, 397–417.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, I. (1996) Crime, punishment, and market for offenses. J. Political Perspect. 10, 43–67.Google Scholar
Eide, E. (1999) Economics of criminal behavior. In: Bouckaert, B. & De Geest, G. (editors), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Edward Elgar and University of Ghent, Ghent, Chapter 8100, pp. 345–389. URL: http://encyclo.findlaw.com/8100book.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D. & Loayza, N. (2002) What causes violent crime? Eur. Econ. Rev. 46, 1323–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. & Scheinkman, J. A. (1996) Crime and social interactions. Q. J. Econ. 111, 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. B., Iglesias, J. R., Semeshenko, V. & Nadal, J.-P. (2009) Crime and punishment: The economic burden of impunity. Eur. Phys. J. B, Condens. Matter Complex Syst. 68 (1), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science (2001) Web site. URL: http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/about/crime_science/index.phpGoogle Scholar
Kelling, G. & Coles, C. (1996) Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. The Free Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Kelling, G. L., Juliann, M. & Miller, S. (1994) Managing ‘Squeegeeing’: A Problem Solving Exercise. City Police Department, New York.Google Scholar
Langan, P. A. & Farrington, D. P. (1998) Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981–96, Technical report, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cjusew96.pdfGoogle Scholar
Newman, M. E. J. (2000) Models of the small world. J. Stat. Phys. 101 (3–4), 819–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, R. & Messner, S. F. (2009) The crime drop in comparative perspective: The impact of the economy and imprisonment on American and European burglary rate. Br. J. Sociol. 6 (3), 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semeshenko, V., Iglesias, J. R. & Gordon, M. B. Crime and punishment: Is crime rewarding?, submitted.Google Scholar
Smith, D. J. (1999) Less crime without more punishment. Edinburgh Law Rev. 3, 294–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar