Does Contact with the Justice System Influence Situational Action Theory's Causes of Crime? A Study of English and German Juveniles

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10575677221082071
• Author: Florian Kaiser
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Original Articles

Does Contact with the Justice

System Inf‌luence Situational

Action Theory’s Causes of

Crime? A Study of English and

German Juveniles

Florian Kaiser

1

Abstract

To explore why system contact often has no crime-preventative effect, the current study examined

the effects of juvenile justice contact on Situational Action Theory’s (SAT) causes of crime, including

personal morals, deviant peer associations, and detection risk perceptions. The analysis is based on

a sample of English (Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study) and German

(Crime in the modern City study) juveniles. Propensity score matching was applied to estimate

whether the lenient system contacts inf‌luenced the causes of crime in the year after the contact.

The treatment effect estimates are mostly insignif‌icant and relatively small. The few signi f‌icant esti-

mates in the English sample suggest that off‌icial contact slightly increased deviant peer associations

and decreased feelings of moral guilt. Overall, the f‌indings suggest that system contact may often

have no crime-preventative effect as it does not (Germany), or only slightly (England) affect

SAT’s causes of crime. Previous studies, primarily based on the U.S. data, often reported more sub-

stantial effects that mostly operated in a crime-amplifying direction. It is speculated whether the less

substantial impact in the current study can be attributed to the overall more lenient, diversion-ori-

ented handling of the examined English and German offenders.

Keywords

effects of juvenile justice system contact, causes of crime, Situational Action Theory, propensity

score matching, cross-national research

Introduction

A primary objective of modern criminal justice systems is to prevent crime. If the systems fail to

achieve this goal and a person breaks the law, legal actors (e.g., police off‌icers) typically seek to

prevent further offending by arresting and, if necessary, sanctioning that person. In recent

1

Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Florian Kaiser, Institute of CriminalLaw and Criminology, University of Münster, Bispinghof 24/25, 48143Münster, Germany.

Email: f‌lorian.kaiser@uni-muenster.de

Original Article

International Criminal Justice Review

2023, Vol. 33(3) 253-280

© 2022 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10575677221082071

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

decades, numerous studies have examined whether such contact with the criminal justice system

(including, e.g., apprehension, arrest, diversion, and sanctions) actually prevents reoffending.

Contrary to the goals of criminal justice agents, the majority of these studies suggest that system

contact is either relatively ineffective or even increases criminal involvement (for reviews, see

Barrick, 2014; Bernburg, 2019; Huizinga & Henry, 2008; Kleck & Sever, 2017).

Using data that resulted in insignif‌icant f‌indings in a previous investigation (Boers et al., 2022),

the current study addresses the following question: Why do contacts with the criminal justice system

often have no crime-preventative impact? Answering this question theoretically and empirically

requires focusing on the intervening factors that may mediate the effects of off‌icial contact on

reoffending.

Criminologists have identif‌ied numerous factors as theoretically relevant mediators. Perceptual

deterrence theorists assume that off‌icial contact may reduce reoffending by increasing sanction

threat perceptions (Paternoster, 2018). Labeling scholars suggest that off‌icial contact may amplify

reoffending (1) by initiating or facilitating the development of a deviant self-concept, (2) by initiating

or increasing the association with deviant peers, or (3) by inhibiting the punished offenders’social

bonds and life chances (Bernburg, 2019). The procedural justice theory stresses that the effect of

system contact depends on whether apprehended offenders feel that the proceeding against them

was fair and just and whether they consequently view the law and its enforcement as legitimate

(e.g., Slocum et al., 2016). Def‌iance theory emphasizes that the impact of punishment depends on

how offenders perceive the sanction (e.g., unfair and stigmatizing), how strongly they are bonded

to the sanctioning agent and community, and whether they subsequently develop feelings of

shame or self-righteous anger (Sherman, 1993).

Confronted with such an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of potentially relevant intervening

factors, one wonders which are the most relevant mediators. So far, most empirical studies did not

concentrate on this question. They instead tested the presumptions of a single theory, such as deter-

rence theory (e.g., Anwar & Loughran, 2011; Pogarsky et al., 2005) or labeling theory (e.g.,

Bernburg et al., 2006; Wiley et al., 2013). However, the empirical literature indicates that mecha-

nisms proposed in different theories may be at work simultaneously. Hence, it may be better to inte-

grate these mechanisms into a more general theoretical framework. The need for such integration was

recently highlighted by Piquero et al. (2011, p. 338), who stressed that “it may be more prof‌itable to

think of a general theory of sanctions rather than deterrence, labeling, or def‌iance theory.”When con-

sidering the requirements for such a general theory of sanctions, it is apparent that it must clearly

def‌ine the factors that directly cause crime. It is only when a sanction reduces these key causal

inputs that it can ultimately reduce reoffending. By distinguishing between direct causes of crime

and more distal factors, a general theory should be able to “separate the wheat from the chaff.”

All theories that clearly def‌ine the causes of crime are thus candidates for a starting framework for

a general theory of sanctions. The current study selects Wikström’sSituational Action Theory (SAT)

as a promising starting point (Wikström et al., 2012). SAT is chosen because it has performed well

empirically so far (Pauwels et al., 2018)

1

, provides a sophisticated action model, and goes to great

lengths to distinguish between direct antecedents of criminal offending and more distal factors. In

particular, the theory differentiates the causes of crime from the causes of the causes (Wikström,

2011). Causes of crime are the few factors that directly inf‌luence criminal involvement. Causes of

the causes are, in contrast, factors that have only an indirect effect on criminal offending through

their inf‌luence on the causes of crime. By providing this terminology, SAT allows identifying the

causes of crime as the crucial mediators of system contact effects. Some of these causes of crime

coincide with intermediate factors outlined in contemporary versions of deterrence and labeling

theory. Using SAT as starting framework, the current study can thus integrate some ideas of the

latter theories about sanctioning effects. In doing so, it is—at least to my knowledge—the f‌irst empir-

ical application of SAT to study the impact of criminal justice interventions.

2

254 International Criminal Justice Review 33(3)