Introduction
Rational choice approach views the motivations, desires, and preferences of an offender to be similar to those of non-offenders. The theory focuses on individuals as independent actors in crime (Gül,2009). To rational choice theorists, the individual freely makes deviant or non-conforming decisions based on rational calculations of the cost and benefits involved, that is, the pleasure or pain likely to result from such actions (hedonistic calculus) (Akers,1990). The choice made is one likely going to result to greatest individual pleasure. Choice theorists thus believe decisions made can be controlled through the understanding that pain or punishment will accompany the violation of the social contract (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014). To this end, the severity, swiftness, and certainty of pain (punishment) in the face of deviance aid the state in the control of human criminal behavior. The rational choice perspective portrays criminals as rational thinkers basing their decisions to engage in criminalities on the evaluation of the risks versus the gain. This implies that crimes are committed solely for their benefits (Keel, 1997). Such views have some obvious implications. If the benefits of committing crime are always high, then crime levels will also be high. If the risk or cost of crime outweighs the benefits, then it would be expected crime levels will be low or will not occur (McCarthy & Hagan, 2005). This view serves the arguments made by advocates of deterrence.
Theoretically, the rational choice approach shares some features with other prior theoretical attempts at explaining crime like routine activity theory, criminal event perspective, and reasoned offender approach (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014). Although the rational choice approach stands in contrast with other theories explaining the origins of choice, there is sizable conceptual overlap with the more sociological approaches to offending and even in suggestions for theoretical integration. The approach is nonetheless incompatible with explanations that posit that socialization or structural conditions engender character defects that cause offender’s decision making to be distinct from that of non-offenders (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014). This paper hopes to demonstrate the idea that delinquent offenders and criminals’ exhibit cost-benefit rationality that may be inadequate in understanding and addressing crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
History
The rational choice approach in criminology is a product of paradigm shifts that took place starting in the 1970s (Buchanan & Tullock, 1974; Becker, 1976; Cornish & Clark, 1986)). Much earlier attempts at explaining crime from a rational choice perspective can nonetheless be traced to Cesare Beccaria’s influential 1764 essay On Crimes and Punishments and Bentham’s 1789 work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014) . The deterrence approach builds on some of the insights from these classical works (Akers, 1990). Bentham, for instance, submitted that the motivations for individual actions, criminal or otherwise, can be found in individual self-interest and the quest to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. Punishment to him, therefore, required a degree of rationality if it is to influence perceptions of pain and pleasure associated with specific choices (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014). While these much earlier approaches to crime and punishment gained a degree of influence at the time, ideas of classical school were for two centuries superseded by psychological, biological, and sociological explanations. Edward Sutherland, observing the influence of these ‘dispositional theories of crime and deviance, noted that they-psychological, socio-cultural and genetic theories- had comprised the standard reference of criminological reference from Durkheim to Lombroso, from Marxist criminology to the 20 th century’s work on the genetic basis of antisocial behavior (Akers, 1990). The 1970s was, therefore, a revival phase for classical ideas of criminal behavior.
For much of the intervening period, efforts had been directed towards programmes meant to hinder the growth of criminality: perceived to be complex attitudes, traits, and dispositions that predispose individuals to crime. Criminality, it was widely thought, could be altered through suitable treatments that changed the individual (Paternoster, 2010). These evaluations and programmes, however, proved unconvincing in their effectiveness thus necessitating a paradigm shift in criminal behavior. The most prominent failure of these rehabilitation programmes was on the permanent effects they had. Offenders were taken from their natural environments to undergo treatment in various institutions. They would later be reinserted in their post-treatment environments. Relapse into crime, commonplace at the time, evidenced the failure of such programmes to bring about permanent change (Akers, 1990). Such findings, pointing to the malleability of behavior and attitudes, demanded a shift in theoretical approaches. The desire for a rehabilitative ideal, however, yielded other findings that would shape the emergence of the rational choice theory. It was observed that even if permanent change- continued absence of deviance in the post-treatment period- had not been attained, there was a general behavioral shift during the treatment period. Researchers attributed this change to interactions within the rehabilitation centers and the effects of punishment administered during the rehabilitation period, thus asserting the influence of the environment on human behavior.
As such, these findings would give birth to an environmental theory that would attempt to explain the influence of environmental factors on criminal behavior. It sought to cure the deficiencies of the medical-psychological theory and incorporate other marginalized considerations that combined influence predisposition to crime (Wholl, 2009). Consequently, it provided an initial way of examining environmental influences and how such influences could be manipulated to reduce crime. Even so, the theory was increasingly losing traction mostly due to its reliance on the concepts of radical behaviorism, an approach psychologists were beginning to reject due to its failure to pay attention to the cognitive aspects determining behavior. The tremendous growth of situational crime prevention was also beginning to demand a revised framework that could explain the developments witnessed in situational crime prevention as well as a way to explain the intensified criticism it was experiencing. Situation crime prevention had started employing a language of decision making and choice as well as a simple choice model that had emerged in 1980 to respond to increased criticism that situational measures merely lead to displacement (Hayward, 2007). The idea of displacement held that if an offender were stopped from committing a crime, the offender would displace- choose a different place or time, change target, change the form of crime or adopt a different modus operandi. A theoretical framework that considered matters choice and decision making enabled a more subtle discussion on displacement (the circumstances under which displacement is more or less likely to occur).
Understanding the mind of an offender was far much easier than the black box approach of radical behaviorism. The move from radical behaviorism to rational choice was also a result of practical considerations: intentionality and choice is a fundamental part of discourses not just within the criminal justice system but even in everyday life (Hayward, 2007). A new approach was also necessary to respond to and handle the growing research on offender’s decision making and perceptions that was underway in the 1980s (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014), more so given the relevance it was deemed to have on situational crime prevention.
The choice model was swiftly emerging as rational. Gambling studies precipitated this process. For a long time, gambling had been perceived as irrational. Psychiatrists had depicted gambling practices as mental disorders while decision theorists and economists found the choices made by gamblers to be financially irrational, especially if gauged on the outcome (Levitt & Miles, 2006). Gambling was, however, beginning to gain respect as the complexity of gambling became apparent: it entailed making decisions under conditions of extreme uncertainty and often with little or erroneous information. As Shapiro (2006) has rightly observed, there was general gravitation of criminological literature towards a rational choice approach: disciplines such as sociology of deviance, economics, and cognitive psychology, all seemed to build on the emerging conception of criminals as rational offenders.
Discussion
Rationality is widely used to explain and judge the human action. As a theory, it commands a wide interdisciplinary acceptance, perhaps more than any other in behavioral sciences (Ogu, 2013). Karl Popper observed that the presumption of rationality as a methodological principle is extremely essential. Presumption of rationality is, however, not the same as perfect rationality. This delineation is important in understanding the rational choice criminological theory (HoShona & Shannon, 2015). This is the point of departure between rational choice perspective and the rational choice models found in decision making and modern economics.
A presumption of rationality recognizes that offenses are committed in less than perfect circumstances. Indeed, carrying out an offense is an inherently perilous affair where the possible cost or benefits are vague if not impossible to estimate. Time constraints, skill differences, and experience makes this a more hazy task (Akers, 1990). These conditions are far from perfect and, as such, produce only satisfactory results rather than optimal outcomes. Thus, rational choice theory in crime ought to appreciate or appreciate a bounded level of rationale.
Keel (1997) described what he considered to be the principle tenets of rational choice. It assumes that human beings are rational actors and that this rationality entails an end means calculation. People, he contended, freely choose either deviant or conformist behavior based on a rational weighting. The central element of this calculation (weighting) is a cost-benefit analysis based on a hedonistic calculus. All factors equal, rational choice assumes choice will be made towards maximization of individual pleasure. The choice is, however, controlled through an understanding or perception of potential punishment or pain that accompanies the abuse of the social good as contained in the social contract. The state is the embodiment of the social contract and, therefore, responsible for ensuring conformity with a system of laws. The severity, swiftness, and certainty of punishment are key towards ensuring the ability of laws to manage human behavior.
Contemporary rational choice perspective emphasizes the need to broadly interpret the purpose or benefit an offender might get from committing a crime. There is a propensity to limit the interpretation of benefits to merely mean financial or material value (McCarthy & Hagan, 2005). Such an interpretation fails to explain the benefits that accrue to an offender who commits crimes such as rape, hooliganism, assault, arsonist offenses, domestic abuse, or vandalism. To this extent, the benefits of offending may be in satisfying human desires such as excitement, revenge, admiration, control, reduction of tension or even sexual gratification. Of course, money is a convenient and significant goal behind offending. It helps in satisfying many desires that would otherwise lead to delinquency.
An understanding of the various stages involved in committing a particular form of crime is crucial in assessing the decision making the process by an offender. For instance, the decision by a novice to engage in a particular crime will be influenced by previous experiences of similar acts and other background factors such as upbringing and personality. On the other hand, the decision to continue to committing offenses will be informed by successes or failures encountered (McCarthy & Hagan, 2005). These considerations of continued involvement should, however, consider the various extraneous variables that would have a bearing on continued deviance such as the death of a parent, divorce, marriage, sickness and other life events.
In practice, it is possible for an offender to engage in more than one form of crime. In such cases, the offender simultaneously makes multiple analyses of the rewards and punishments of such crimes. Experiences in carrying out one crime will no doubt have a bearing on the decision and modus operandi of committing the other. Lack of success in one crime, for instance, will lead to a reduction in crime-frequency, time and place- or even to distance from crime. However, if an offender possesses a repertoire of criminal skills, he may turn to other criminal acts such as from carjacking to theft (Travis, 2008). In other words, displacement in crime is not only determined by a cost-benefit analysis but also other factors such as skills and experience.
Some scholars have criticized the rational choice approach for its propensity to treat crime as a unitary phenomenon as opposed to a set of diverse behaviors. The treatment of such a phenomenon as unitary behavior, scholars argue, has a propensity to lead to the development of simplistic theories that fail to explain or combat crime (Gül, 2009). In addition, it hinders the focus and ambition of practical crime control measures. There is thus a need for categorization of crimes based on type, extent, and consequence. Particularly, this helps inform not just the response mechanism but also the motivation behind delinquency thus enabling the formulation of a prediction model. For instance, while rape is principally committed to satisfying sexual desires, it may also be informed by the desire to humiliate and exercise control and domination over the victim. Additionally, burglary may be carried out to satisfy the need for cash in as much as it may be carried out for sneaky thrills. Put differently, specific crimes have specific motivations and benefits. Since crimes significantly vary, the considerations or variables informing choices by offenders significantly vary, leading to numerous forms of crimes. Seemingly fine distinctions such as violent crime, sex offenses or computer fraud may be too huge a generalization in understanding crime from a rational choice perspective (Pogarsky, Roche, & Pickett, 2018). This is because these crimes might include numerous motivations, a wide-ranging group of offenders as well as different degrees of skill by the offenders. This specificity is thus important in understanding crime because of a rational offender, the risks, rewards, effort, and activities to be undertaken and even the location are all vital considerations. Therefore the utility of the rational choice theory is largely crime-specific.
The Case of a Burglary
This case is suitable because it can be easily analyzed by the rational choice theory owing to focus on monetary gain. Burglars make clear decisions when considering where and when to commit offenses. As various studies have demonstrated, it is a keenly thought out exercise. They carefully study the target that is often known to them either through secondary information or from other parties or even through personal interactions.
The notion that all crimes are rational requires closer interrogation. Property crimes, white collar, and organized crime are generally thought to be rational, with easily understood objectives and motivations. Crimes such as violence and sex, however, do not have clear rationality and objective. This is primarily because of the nature of such a crime whereby there has been a general reluctance to investigate their motivations (Mccarthy & Chaudhary, 2014). Indeed, this is more so the case with violent offending where the notion of violence as an attractive and instrumental tool of achieving goals causes tremendous discomfort. This hesitation can be traced to a number of reasons. There is a notion that solely economic crimes or economically motivated crimes ought to be considered rational. The absurdity in such a view is that it rules out an entire swathe of criminal activities that inform human motives and desires such as proving toughness, bravery, fun, frighten, status and admiration (Higgins, 2007). The reluctance is also a result of an individual’s failure to identify a motive thus labeling such actions as inhuman, insensible or inconceivable. Lastly, the reluctance is a result of failure to make distinctions between the means used, ends, and motives (Travis, 2008). In a case of serial sexual murder, the crime would appear to be pathological due to the motives at play and use of rather disproportionate violence to commit the act. As such, this might lead to an entire dismissal of crime commission as irrational despite there being considerable evidence to indicate planning, sophisticated selection of targets, disposal of evidence, and attempts to evade discovery.
Therefore, judging the rationale in crime can only be undertaken once there is clear motive identification. Subsequently, this can then be accompanied by assessing the rationality of tactics. The lack of attention to details, the multitasking nature of offenders and their lifestyle may often conceal a rational decision-making process on the part of the criminal. Also, the various ethnographic studies of crime may fail to sufficiently reveal a pattern of rationality amongst offenders (Wholl, 2009). These differences may also be indicative of the distinctions present in the usage of rational choice in different disciplines (Ogu, 2013). For instance, while criminology may utilize the theory in an attempt to control crime, psychology’s primary preoccupation would be to control crime.
Rational choice is today heavily utilized in the American system. It is in many ways the basis or an assumption in legal tenets and prescription (Travis, 2008). Utilitarian concepts that underlie the law are combined with the notion that people are selfish and, as such, laws need to be formulated to ensure a utilitarian balance. The theory is also implicitly at the center of political discourse. There is a tremendous degree of consensus in the United States that harsher penalties should be imposed on offenders. Such views are grounded on the assumption that deterrence can work if the pain of deviance outweighs the gain (Ogu, 2013). The theory finds manifest even in our homes. Parents believe that children can be deterred from future crimes if punished for misdemeanors. The concept also applies within the workplace when disciplinary measures and imposition of penalties are taken against non-conforming employees. As other commentators have noted, of all criminality theories, it is only this theory that puts blame squarely on the individual while rejecting the contribution of other actors in influencing crime.
Nevertheless, the American criminal justice system does demonstrate an understanding of crime that transcends the rational theory perspective. Criminals are not always assumed to be all rational beings. The degree and nature of penalties imposed on an offender demonstrate the system understanding of diverse criminal persuasions beyond a cost-benefit analysis (Cornish & Clark, 1986). The idea of rationality, it must be stated, is extremely vague. A categorical assertion that people or all their behaviors are rational does not seem to meet sufficient evidential threshold. Empirically applicable definitions are highly susceptible to arbitrariness. If the rational behavior is to be based on its purpose or goal orientation, then all almost all human behaviors are going to be rational. If anything, such a proposition would make rational and irrational decisions meaningless at least in their consequence.
The idea of soft determinism that emphasizes both determinism and rational free will would offer a more suitable approach to the understanding of criminal behavior. Such an approach would appreciate that people are not always rational actors (Wholl, 2009). A person may be drawn into committing criminal offenses due to influences beyond his control. For instance, a person may commit manslaughter, not as a result of any cost-benefit analysis, but due to uncontrollable hunger that triggers one to such heinous act. As others scholars have advised, it would be important not to ignore offenses carried out by seemingly irrational or insane people. Even such acts amount to a crime. To this end, a rational choice perspective would have little success in explaining such peculiar cases of deviance (Pogarsky, Roche, & Pickett, 2018). They would demand a med-psychological approach.
Conclusion
The rational choice theory proposes that committing a crime entails a consideration of the rewards and costs of such acts. In this respect, the theory proposes an understanding of crime with much regard for personality traits, biological factors, strain or socio-environmental factors. It assumes it is possible to understand crime ‘as if’ individuals employ the same tenets as cost-benefit analysis. Thus, the decision to offend is based on preferences, attitudes towards risk, time discounting, and illegal opportunities available. Punishment is thus thought to play a profound role in controlling behavior since people consider the likelihood of being caught and punished when making their cost-benefit calculus. In this regard, rational choice is in harmony and, indeed, builds on deterrence theory, which enjoys a much longer intellectual tradition.
The emphasis rational choice theory makes on rewards and punishment as a premise for understanding criminal behavior, however, omits other vital factors that help explain crime. The rational choice paradigm may not adequately explain crimes that are genuinely senseless, compulsive, and irrational. Acts such as kleptomania, senseless violence, and pyromania if examined using the rational choice explanatory perspective predisposes one to characterizations that shed no light to the mental state of the offender. The unpredictability of such ‘senseless offenses’ makes the rational perspective inadequate in countering crime as well as deterring it. Put differently, the rational choice theory fails to cater for what would be considered ‘irrational crimes.’ In this regard, the intellectual rigor scholars have sought to bring with the importation of rational choice from the economics profession can only be attained to a limited degree.
Ultimately, making sense of such crimes can only be done with the aid of approaches that examine a person’s history, perceptions of reality, the environmental realities as well as biological and psychological conditions of an individual. To this extent, the rational choice, though offering valuable insights into criminal behavior, fails to address other pressing aspects of crime. It would, however, be illusory to expect a single theoretical framework to address all aspects of criminal behavior. An understanding of the entire scope of crime would require an integrated theoretical approach. Theorists of criminal behavior have, therefore, sought to adopt an integrated rational choice model to explain crime. Rational choice has come a very long way in the field of criminology from the early and oversimplified accounts of Beccaria (1764) that assumed that stiffer penalties could only lead to crime reduction to its modern-day status. The extent to which its current maturity appreciates the complex character of criminal behavior is, however, still contested and will continue to agitate the minds of theorists.
References
Akers, R. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning: Theory in criminology: The path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81 (3), https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6670&context=jclc.
Becker, G. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: The University Press.
Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1974). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press .
Cornish, D., & Clark, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gül, S. K. (2009). An evaluation of the rational choice theory in criminology. J. Soc. & Appl. Sci, 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), 232-250.
Higgins, G. E. (2007). Digital piracy, self-control theory, and rational choice: An examination of the role of value. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1 (1).
HoShona, P. C., & Shannon, B.-B. (2015). The assumption of rational choice theory in Alfred Adler's theory of crime: Unraveling and reconciling the contradiction in Adlerian theory through synthesis and critique. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 95-103.
Keel, R. O. (1997). Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory. http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/ratchoc.html.
Levitt, S., & Miles, T. J. (2006). Economic contributions to the understanding of crime. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 147-164.
Mccarthy, B., & Chaudhary, A. R. (2014). Rational choice theory and crime. Encyclopedia of Crime and Criminal Justice .
McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (2005). Danger and the decision to offend. Social Forces , 3, 1065-1096.
Ogu, M. I. (2013). Rational Choice Theory: assumptions, strengths and greatest weaknesses in application outside the Kenyan milieu context. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review , 91-100.
Orsagha, T., & Marsden, M. E. (1985). What works when: Rational-choice theory and offender rehabilitation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13 (3), 269-277.
Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology , 100, 765-824.
Pogarsky, G., Roche, S. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2018). Offender decision-making in criminology: Contributions from behavioral economics. Annual Review of Criminology , 379-400.
Shapiro, G. (2006). The rise of rational choice. Knickerbocker.
Travis, P. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy and criminological relevance. Criminology and Public Policy, 7 (1), 43-52.
Wholl, D. (2009). A rational choice approach to professional crime using a meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Scholar Comons .
