Education
 

Rational Choice Theory

From Criminology Wiki

Contents

[edit] Introduction: Evolution of Rational Choice Theory

The rational choice theory, also known as rational action theory, was inspired initially in the 1700s by a man named Cesare Beccaria, whose utilitarian views and ideas were widely accepted throughout Europe and the United States. Beccaria’s contributions helped to eliminate cruel and unusual punishment in the nineteenth century, which at the time was very common, and to form the basis for the classical theory of crime, a school of thought that influenced the French Revolution and the establishment of the Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution. Beccaria believed that people choose to engage in all behavior, criminal and non-criminal, and without the fear and certainty of severe punishment for criminal offenses, people will continue to choose to commit those crimes. Additionally, he believed that all individuals possess free will. People use free will to make rational decisions, such as whether or not the personal benefits are worth the risk of violating the law by committing a crime. It is by free will that people are able to follow through with those “rational” decisions. To Beccaria, punishment should address prevention rather than revenge. He believed that the only way to deter criminals from continuing to commit more serious offenses is to ensure that the punishment is well suited for the crime. In other words, the punishment should only be severe enough to outweigh the personal benefits gained from committing the crime. If this were not the case, minor offenses would be punishable by the same sanctions as more serious offenses, making it more logical for an offender to commit a more serious crime and suffer the same consequences, a concept that is today referred to as marginal deterrence. A British philosopher named Jeremy Bentham elaborated on Beccaria’s views and proposed the idea that people choose their actions by whether or not they produce happiness and avoided unpleasant conditions. With this perspective, laws were created to keep its community happy and punishment is only justified if it is used as a method of prevention. More specifically, the purpose of punishment is to provide a cheap method of preventing all criminal offenses, to ensure that a criminal does not use any unnecessary force, and if possible, to convince a criminal to commit a less serious crime. The popularity of the classical theory peaked in the 1800s but began to decline and was eventually neglected altogether by the majority of criminologists by the end of the twentieth century. During the mid-1970s, as positivist approaches towards the rehabilitation of known criminals began to prove ineffective, the popularity of the classical approach improved. A significant increase in the reported crime rate inspired some criminologists to suggest that it would be more effective to evoke fear into criminals by threatening severe punishments than to waste the public’s money by trying to rehabilitate them. These suggestions were carried out during Reagan’s presidency, when politicians passed tough new laws, including mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders, in an effort to decrease the crime rate. Fortunately, although the national prison population increased significantly, the plan was a success and the crime rate plummeted. Criminologists began to portray criminals to the public as rational planners who deserve to be punished. This more modernized view of the classical school of criminology is now known as the rational choice theory and is used to explain why criminals commit crimes.

[edit] Central Concepts/Hypotheses

According to the rational choice theory, criminals are people who share the same goals and ambitions as ordinary citizens, but choose to obtain those goals by illegitimate means. The rational choice theory is based on the assumption that before choosing to commit a crime, the criminal considers personal factors or motivation for the crime, such as their immediate need for benefits, revenge, or excitement, and also situational factors, such as the severity of the consequences and the risk of apprehension. The moment the decision is made to follow through with an unlawful action that will benefit the offender, a crime has been committed. The rational choice approach distinguishes the difference between crime, an event, and criminality, a personality trait, by proposing the idea of offense-specific and offender-specific crimes. An offense-specific crime is one that is committed by an offender who reacted solely to the characteristics and nature of the crime. On the other hand, an offender-specific crime is one that is committed by an offender who first considers personal factors and motivations before deciding to commit a crime. Therefore, depending on the given circumstances and opportunities, conventional citizens may also risk criminal behavior, making career criminals not responsible for all crime. People are constructed into criminals for personal reasons, such as prior experience and economic opportunity. For example, if a person sees a close friend or relative benefiting from a life of crime, such as selling drugs, criminality becomes more attractive and that person will be more likely to choose illegitimate means to obtain their goals, especially if that person close to them setting an example can give them extra knowledge about how to commit those crimes. On the other hand, if a person sees that same close friend or relative having bad experiences resulting from a life of crime, such as increased vulnerability to violence, prison time, or death, criminality becomes less attractive and that person will be more likely to use legitimate means to obtain their goals. Another personal factor contributing to the conditioning of people to choose crime is their knowledge of criminal techniques, which is in itself a perfect example of the rational choice theory. Many professional criminals who have had years of experience use techniques, such as dealing drugs at specific hours of the day and scoping out territory for potential threats, that they have previously learned to avoid detection. This is clearly a demonstration of rational choice for the purpose of prolonging one’s criminal career. The rational choice view states that offenders commit crimes solely by choice. They rationally plan and choose the type of the crime, the target of the crime, all the way down to the details of the time and place the crime will occur. Criminals may choose the type of crime based on their immediate need for profit. For example, sociologists found that cities with higher amounts of crack cocaine tend to have a higher robbery rather than burglary rate, probably because crack cocaine abusers are in need of a quick fix and don’t want to waste time to sell goods that were stolen during a burglary (Baumer et al.1998). Also, criminals choose the target, time and place of the crime based on convenience, familiarity, and their own safety and security. It should be noted that the rational choice views are very similar with that of the routine activities theory. In both theories, criminal opportunity is an important factor in determining whether or not crime will occur. Criminal opportunity in these theories is defined as the target’s vulnerability and the presence of a capable guardian, such as police, neighbors, or relatives. And Pocohauntas smelled funny

[edit] Evaluation: Compliments and Criticisms

The rational choice theory, in my opinion, is one of the strongest theories available to explain the causation of crimes. The theory illustrates strong logical consistency and a very broad scope because almost every type of crime (theft, drug use, violence, etc.) can be explained by rational choice. For example, robbery and burglary are both committed for the purpose of obtaining property or other goods that can be used to the offender’s economic benefit either by being sold or traded. In most cases, the thief comes prepared with either some type of protective clothing (mask, glove, etc.) and/or means to store and transport the stolen goods, whether it is a bag or getaway vehicle. Even violent crimes such as rape and murder are premeditated, displaying clear, rational decision-making processes. This rational thinking is evident in the offender’s selection of victim, location, and time and place of the crime. An article that directly supports the empirical validity of the rational choice view shows that even violent criminals, including sex offenders, exhibit an immense level of rationality. The article described a study that used qualitative data obtained through descriptive interviews provided by 69 serial sex offenders incarcerated in Canada to analyze the offense behavior of serial sex offenders. In this study, the offenders described the “hunting process” they used in their search for a suitable victim and method of attack before and during the commission of the crime (Beauregard, Rossmo, and Proulx 2007). Another study conducted testing the rational choice model against the offenses of shoplifting and tax evasion found that the perceived probability of being apprehended and punished prevented many of the subjects from committing a crime, even if the individual’s expected economic benefits were great (Becker and Mehlkop 2006). One of the most common criticisms of this theory is that it over exaggerates individual choice and doesn’t incorporate societal factors such as broken families, poverty, unfavorable living conditions, and underprivileged childhood into a person’s potential for criminality. Without incorporating these factors, it is impossible to account for and explain all causes of criminal behavior. Another criticism is that because the scope of the theory is so large and attempts to explain all causes of criminality, it becomes tautological. Also, the theory is somewhat parsimonious because although it states that an offender will commit a crime based on free will and rational choice, there are still many factors that the individual must consider before deciding whether or not to risk violating the law. Although I am a strong proponent of this theory, I still believe there are some exceptions and have a few questions that I do not believe rational choice views can answer. If individuals make rational decisions about whether or not to commit a crime based on their evaluation of personal and situational factors, then how would one explain “crimes of passion?” For example, a husband that comes home to find his wife in bed with another man couldn’t have possibly had enough time between getting his gun and shooting the victim(s) to rationally think about and consider the benefits and consequences of his actions. The theory is based on an individual decision-making model that suggests that a crime would be committed if the benefits appeared greater than the risk or consequences to the offender. If this is the case, then for what reason do people join gangs? Clearly, some of the crimes that gang members commit profit their gang as a whole, such as hustling and drug dealing. But engaging in other gang-related activities, such as enduring beatings just for the purpose of initiation, would increase a member's vulnerability to crime and violence and therefore not benefit the individual at all. For many of its members, gangs are not individually beneficial, whether economically or physically, thus contradicting the central concepts of the rational choice model.

[edit] Conclusion

The rational choice theory spawned from ideas from Cesare Beccaria who contributed to the formulation of the classical school of criminology in the 1700s, but was later modernized and developed to incorporate factors such as emotions, morality, and values. The theory attempts to explain the causation of crime by assuming that after consideration and evaluation of certain personal and situational factors, an individual uses free will and rational choice in the decision-making process that determines his/her commission of a crime. Despite some seemingly valid criticisms, the theory has influenced significant historical landmarks and documents and is still one of the oldest standing explanations for crime around today.


[edit] Works Cited

Retrieved from "http://criminology.wikia.com/wiki/Rational_Choice_Theory"