Introduction
The Rational Choice Theory is one of the most common and widely accepted theories in criminology. This theory is useful to deter criminal activity by changing the environment that might invite the attention of criminal elements. This theory has a crime displacement application. Most of the initiatives for crime prevention use the Rational Choice Theory. This theory proves that criminals make a rational choice when selecting targets by weighing the pros and cons (Akers, 1990).
Origins of the theory
The history of this theory traces back to the inspiration of Cesare Bonesana-Beccaria’s book, On Crimes and Punishment. Beccaria contended that people decided on their course of action with rational thinking to gain the maximum possible gratification personally. He adds that it is an act of free will. This logic borders with Jeremy Bentham’s Pannomion, a new code of law which he aspired to implement. Bentham states that every individual exercises the right to choose between what is right and wrong. He adds that this decision-making arises between the choice of pleasure and pain. He was the first to suggest that criminal behavior might hinge on cause and effect.
Despite the reputation and political status of both Beccaria and Bentham, the governments at the time were unwilling to incorporate change in their criminal justice systems. Hence, both theories faced wide scale rejection politically. In 1987, Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish, colleagues at the work came up with the Rational Choice Theory by studying the behaviors of convicted burglars and robbers. They asserted that every individual makes a definite choice on how to generate income to meet a particular need. The influencing factors for this choice are extreme circumstance or social inhibition, the opportunity to commit a criminal act against an easy target, and the absence of deterrents or the reduced chances of capture.
Elements of the theory
The Rational Choice Theory consists of three main elements. They are the absence of a legitimate way to obtain the money, an opportunity to strike with minimal risk, and the consequences in case of capture or worse. This section explores each of these elements in detail. In addition, provides comparisons with actual criminals and their actions.
Absence of legitimate earning possibility
The basic personal needs of an individual (food, clothing, shelter, and retaining relationships) usually get the person’s highest level of attention. If there is a threat to any of these needs, the individual might choose a path that leads to criminal activity. For example, a runaway teenager from a small town does not have too many options to make an honest living that will provide the basic needs (Kuhns, 2013). The chances of this individual embracing crime are almost unpreventable. The scene is the same for a released ex-con who spent a decade behind bars. The world that this individual knew when he entered prison is not around anymore. Upon release, if the individual is unable to find reasonable employment legitimately, he will look to commit a crime.
Availability of an easy score
The definition of an easy score varies based on demographic considerations. It will depend on the subject’s gender, experience in criminal activity, and level of skills. In the United States, it will also be a question of the number of prior incarcerations. For example, women burglars usually prefer residential targets while men prefer commercial establishments. The complexity involved in the plan also comes into play. The prolific serial killer, Ted Bundy used to entice women into his vehicle by pretending to be injured and wearing a sling. The well-meaning women complied with his requests to help him “load a boat”. However, he never forced any woman to accompany him and always backed away if the woman declined to help.
The skill of Ted Bundy as a manipulator is a key factor to his success. His practice of not risking hostile behavior also made him invisible in the crowd except for the sling. He planned each one of his kidnappings and subsequent murders meticulously. His determination of an easy score was a person with a helpful tendency. Similarly, a first-time criminal will look for an opportunity where he/she can get away with the act and also find personal gratification. Ideally, a first time criminal will try an easy target like the recent cases of the stealing of charity boxes from churches in Sussex. The case of the charity boxes is intriguing since the church lost them at the rate of one box for every three days. The charity boxes will have surprisingly high quantities of cash, the churches might not have security cameras, and the boxes kept in full view make them an easy score (Vowles, 2015).
Consequences of capture or injury
The criminal elements contend with the consequences of capture or worse when engaging in criminal activity. A recent study in the United States reveals that bag snatchers, robbers, burglars, and shoplifters avoid establishments or individuals known to carry firearms. The consequence of the risk is serious injury or even death. Similarly, the punishment for certain crimes also deters some criminal elements. The three-strike law in the United States is a deterrent for repeat offenders. According to this law, the jail time keeps increasing with every sentencing and if the offender faces a similar charge for a third time, the punishment if life in prison.
Other minor factors
Apart from the major elements, there are a few minor factors that also contribute to the person’s decision to go through with criminal activity. Age plays a major role in determining whether a veteran bag snatcher wants to ply his trade. If he is not quick enough, there might not be enough time to get away in time. The level of skill equally matters when planning a bank robbery (Wholl, 2009). It is impossible for a successful shoplifter to escalate to robbing banks. The level of skill required for such a high-risk job will not suit someone with specific experience in shoplifting. The presence of law enforcement personnel or the neighborhood watch is also an effective deterrent. Their presence increases the likelihood of capture (Criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com, 2010).
Historic development of the theory
There are two major developments that contribute to the Rational Choice Theory. They are the Situational Crime Prevention (1947) by Edwin Sutherland and Routine Activity Theory (1979) by Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson. Incidentally, Ronald Clarke contributed extensively to the Situational Crime Prevention theory. These developments allowed the opportunity for Clarke and Cornish to arrive at the Rational Choice Theory Model. The Situational Crime Prevention theory focuses on the concept of deterring criminal activity by increasing the stakes involved and lowering the benefits. The presence of a burglar alarm or a dog in the yard increases the chance of capture (Levin and Milgrom, 2004).
Reducing the gains is another way to deter crime according to the Situational Crime Prevention theory. For example if a storeowner decides to make a late deposit every day before closing the business, there will be virtually no cash or only small change for any burglar breaking in. This will deter future raids to the store since the risk is not worth it. Criminal elements create alibis for their presence in a certain vicinity of a neighborhood to avoid suspicion. Posing as a door-to-door salesperson for example reduces the level of awareness of a homeowner. However, if every exit to the neighborhood posts signs against the entry for unauthorized salespersons, the criminal will not have an excuse to be in the neighborhood.
The Routine Activity Theory focuses primarily on the victim of the crime. It establishes the factors that made the victim susceptible to the attack. The choice of street or shortcut, a neighborhood without any law enforcement personnel, or a habitual practice that allows the perpetrator of the crime to choose the victim. Ironically, this theory suggests that men are at a higher level of risk when compared to women. Men tend to travel alone and willing to accommodate risk taking most of the time. Women do not prefer the element of risk. The chances of mugging women are relatively low when compared to that of men. However, the chances of men possessing a firearm is significant when compared to women. The case of Bernhard Goetz in 1984 is an example of what can transpire when criminals target the wrong individual.
Criticisms of the theory
All theories are subject to criticism and the Rational Choice theory is no different. The primary criticism of this theory is the sampling of burglars. Criminologists have difficulty accepting a theory with only a sample of forty burglars. This was the case early on during the release of the paper in 1987. The application of the theory for other crimes that do not involve a financial motive faced multiple criticisms (Wade, 2010). However, later studies indicate that all criminal elements seek gratification. Arsonists seek gratification through their crimes, serial killers enjoy the power that they have over another human life, and sexual predators seek gratification in the domination of their victims. The gain therefore is not restrictive for burglars alone (Gül, 2009). In addition, a new study conducted in the United States with a sample size of four hundred convicted burglars, the survey results vindicate the Rational Choice Theory (Kuhns, 2013).
The concept of Rational Choice Theory hinges on the criminal’s ability to rationalize. Critics were curious to know what the case would be if the criminal is in no position to rationalize. Elaborate heists such as the Antwerp Diamond Heist in 2003 involve criminal masterminds who plan meticulously (Farrell, 2010). However, this is not the case in most of the incidents of bank robbery in the United States. There are several instances where the alleged bank robber slips a note to the teller. These felons are caught within minutes of presenting the notes too. This provides the basis for the belief that no all criminal elements are capable of rational thinking. Unlike in other countries, the successful completion of a high school diploma provides a reasonable job position in the United States. Hence, criminologists tend to disagree with the Rational Choice Theory stating that there is no need for a rational thinker to enter a career of crime. Since the crime rate is high in the country, the critics state that the rational choice theory might not be valid in the US (Hayward, 2007).
The key problem that leads to crime in the United States is the use of drugs. The rationalizing capability of drug users is highly questionable. Especially if they are desperate to commit a crime to earn the drug money, the individuals must be subject to using the drugs for quite some time. There might not be any rationalization in their actions as is the contention of the critics. However, drug addiction is a psychological substance abuse disorder. It is more of a disease than criminal activity. The actions of such individuals are an exemption from the Rational Choice Theory (Farrell, 2010).
The common criticism is that this theory only applies in areas of crime prevention. The contention is that the theory does not provide a comprehensive account to enable predictions based on the data available. However, the primary goal of the Rational Choice theory is to provide inputs for the Situational Crime Prevention theory. The foremost task for law enforcement is the prevention of crime and maintaining the peace. The Rational Choice Theory aids these law enforcement objectives by studying the behavior of criminal elements (Cornish and Clarke, 2003).
Hirschi’s endorsement
The Rational Choice Theory was able to get the endorsement of renowned criminologist Travis Hirschi. In 2010 when he compared his Social Control Theory and the Rational Choice Theory. In his paper, he concludes that the two theories are not very different and have plenty of similarities. Although he acknowledges a few shortcomings with the example of the preference in burglar tools, he admits that this theory has its uses. In addition, he states that despite the similarities, there is no scope of integrating the theories together.
Hirschi states that there can be a new set of factors that the theory can incorporate such as gang affiliation. When the Rational Choice Theory speaks of age related decisions, it should consider the consequences regarding gang affiliations. The theory needs modernization to compete with the newer crimes that emerged in the last few decades. Moreover, Hirschi contends that the Rational Choice Theory is not exclusive to burglary or robbery. He believes that the theory’s scope allows the inclusion of all criminal activity since, all types of criminals seek some form of gratification (Hirschi, 2010).
Furthermore, Hirschi contends with the argument that not all criminal elements can rationalize. Other studies conducted for this theory report that the majority of the incarcerated burglars do not have reasonable intelligence quotients. In response, Hirschi states that the rationalization levels might vary in quality however; the criminals will rationalize in whichever manner possible. The lack of quality in rationalization does not discount the absence of rational thinking by the criminal.
Application in crime prevention
Crime prevention is a high priority detail for every law enforcement agency in this nation. The Rational Choice theory along with its historic partner theories contribute heavily towards this aspect of law enforcement in the United States. The application of this theory is explicit in Problem-oriented Policing, Hot spots policing, Displacement, and Victim awareness.
Problem-oriented Policing (POP)
Problem-oriented Policing focuses on specific issues in a particular neighborhood that will serve as a deterrent for criminal activity. The Rational Choice theory comes in handy to identify potential targets in a particular neighborhood (Scott, 2000). The next step involves removing the factors that provide an opportunity for criminal activity. When the notorious BTK a.k.a Dennis Rader started his murderous career in the early 1970s, the police stepped up patrols in residential areas during late afternoon hours. Eventually, the killings ceased. There was too much risk for the killer and the chances of capture increased significantly.
Police departments across the nation started an initiative that drastically cut down the response time for a 911 call. This allowed a chance to try to apprehend the perpetrators before they can escape the premises. While there were no such arrests recorded, the inexperienced burglars stopped operating in the area. Problem-oriented policing includes joint cooperation with civic authorities to install lights on dark streets and alleys. However, the primary input comes from Rational Choice Theory implementation (Eck and Weisburd, 2000).
Hot Spot Policing and Displacement
This crime prevention isolates a particular area for additional police presence. The behavior of prior criminals picked up in the troublesome neighborhood provides data on where to focus. An abandoned building can provide shelter for bag snatchers or pickpockets. If the building is razed to the ground, the criminal elements will move to a different locality and potentially increase their likelihood of capture. This movement by criminals to a different area is displacement (Matsueda, Huizinga, and Kreager, 2006).
Victim awareness
The most critically important application of the Rational Choice Theory is victims’ awareness. The theory provides in-depth knowledge on why a particular type of victim is susceptible to harm. It might be a personal habit or route taken. The inputs enable a potential victim to avoid getting hurt.
Conclusion
The Rational Choice Theory incorporates important behavioral information pertaining to criminal elements. The information translates into laws and reforms that alter the consequences for the criminal element. The three-strike law is an example of this theory. Hence, after a second conviction for burglary, a criminal element will try to weigh his options in a more legitimate way. Moreover, young adults of this nation require reminders from the law that serious consequences will follow should they choose to break the law (Bradley et al, 2004). Without the knowledge on how a criminal element chooses his victims, it will be a difficult task for law enforcement to protect innocent people (Matsueda, Huizinga, and Kreager, 2006).
References
Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path Not Taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 81 (3). Pp. 653 – 676. DOI: 0091-4169/90/8103-653
Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., and Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 41 (2). Pp. 180 – 213. DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260263
Cornish, D. B., and Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators, and criminal decisions: a reply to Worley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies. 16 (1). Pp. 41 – 96.
Criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com Staff (2010). Rational Choice Theory. Retrieved from: http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/theories/rational-choice-theory/
Eck, J. E., and Weisburd, D. (2000). Crime places in crime theory. Retrieved from: http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_04/crime_places_in_crime_theory.pdf
Farrell, G. (2010). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice and harm reduction versus “cultural criminology”. Social Policy and Administration. 44 (1). Pp. 40 – 66.
Gül, S. K. (2009). An Evaluation of the Rational Choice Theory in Criminology. Soc. & Appl. Sci. 4 (8). Pp. 36 – 44.
Hayward, K. (2007). Situational Crime Prevention and its Discontents: Rational
Choice Theory versus the ‘Culture of Now’. Social Policy and Administration. 41 (3). Pp. 232 – 250.
Hirschi, T. (2010). On the Compatibility of Rational Choice and Social Control Theories of Crime. Retrieved from: http://cj-resources.com/CJ_Crim_Theory_pdfs/theoretical%20issues%20part%20two%20-%20On%20the%20Compatibility%20of%20Rational%20Choice%20and%20social%20control%20theories%20of%20crime-%20Hirschi%202010.pdf
Kuhns, J (2013). Study Provides Insights on Habits and Motivations of Burglars. Retrieved from: http://publicrelations.uncc.edu/news-events/news-releases/study-provides-insights-habits-and-motivations-burglars
Levin, J., and Milgrom, P. (2004). Introduction to Choice Theory. Retrieved from: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Choice%20Theory.pdf
Matsueda, R. L., Huizinga, D., and Kreager, D. A. (2006). Deterring Delinquents: A Rational Choice Model of Theft and Violence. American Sociological Review. 71 (2). Pp. 95 – 122.
Scott, J. (2000). Rational Choice Theory. Retrieved from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/soc401rationalchoice.pdf
Vowles, N (2015). Hundreds of charity boxes stolen by desperate thieves and burglars in Sussex. Retrieved from: http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/14170909.Hundreds_of_charity_boxes_stolen_by_desperate_thieves_and_burglars_in_Sussex/
Wade, L. (2010). The Insufficiency of Rational Choice Theory. Retrieved from: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/20/the-insufficiency-of-rational-choice-theory/
Wholl, D. J. (2009). A rational choice approach to professional crime using a meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Retrieved from: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=etd
