Week Four The Development of Rational Choice Theory

Agenda Review Dates Review Week 5 Assignment Rational Choice Theory

Welcome Back!!! Week 4 Began on January 4 th, 2012 Week 3 assignments have been extended through Friday, January, 6 th, 2012 Week 4 ends January 10 th, 2012 Week 5 project due January 17 th, 2012

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory Routine activities theory is unique because it attempts to explain both offending and victimization. Demonstrate your understanding of routine activities theory and rational choice theory, how the two relate, and how they can inform our crime prevention efforts. Two reliable sources - properly cited. Create a slide PowerPoint presentation (excluding cover and reference slide) that addresses the following:

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory Describe the main elements of routine activities theory (2 – 3 slides) Discuss how this theory can explain why offenders engage in crime (2 – 3 slides) Discuss how this theory can explain how individuals and/or objects may become victimized (2 – 3 slides) Discuss how routine activities theory involves the concept of rational choice (see chapter 4, pp ); ( 2 – 3 slides) Discuss how situational crime prevention strategies (see chapter 4, pp ) may help to reduce crime within the context of the routine activities perspective (2 – 3 slides)

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Format Include a title slide with full name, class name, and date. Include an outline slide. Include an introduction slide which introduces the reader to the main points that will be covered. Provide several slides (body of the presentation) which addresses the main requirements of the presentation. Include a conclusion slide which summarizes the main points that were presented. Use examples to support the presentation. Cite all sources on a separate reference slide at the end of your PowerPoint and cited within the body of your presentation using APA format (you can place the citation on the slide or in the speaker notes).

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Grading Content – 80 Points Research – 40 Points Quality – 30 Points Format – 10 Points Total: 160 Points

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Content Identify and describe all 3 of the following core elements of Routine Activities theory: motivated offenders suitable targets lack of capable guardianship. Discuss how this theory can explain why offenders engage in crime. Discuss how this theory can explain how individuals and/or objects may become victimized. Discuss how routine activities theory involves the concept of rational choice. Discuss how situational crime prevention strategies may help to reduce crime within the context of the routine activities perspective.

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Content Apply knowledge of controlling criminality using the core elements of routine activity theory based on either altering how offenders make rational choices (weighing the risks verses the rewards) and by suggesting the use of one or more of the situational crime prevention strategies such as: Increasing the effort needed to commit crime Increase the risk of committing crime Reducing the rewards of crime Inducing guilt or shame Reducing provocations, and/or Removing excuses.

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Research Is your research current? Did you use at least two credible sources beyond the text material and validate those resources credibility? Did you discuss all the required areas in a substantive manner? Did you use appropriate reference material to support major statements?

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Quality Is your content complete enough to address the topic and questions? Is there a logical flow to your ideas? Did you present the material in a clear and concise manner to provide easy readability?

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Format Did you prepare your project as a PowerPoint Document? Did you label your file correctly? Did you use APA format to cite your sources? Did you check your document for grammar and spelling? Did your meet the length requirements (10-15 slides)?

Week 5 Midterm Project: Routine Activities Theory: Research

Rational Decision Making Criminals plan activities, buy equipment, try to avoid detection, and attempt to put profits in a hidden bank account. Because of these calculated actions, many criminologists suggest that the source of all criminal violations rests upon rational decision making.

History of Rational Choice Theory Beccaria (utilitarian philosophers) suggest: 1. people choose all behavior 2. their choices are designed to bring them leisure and reduce pain 3. criminal choices can be controlled by fear of punishment 4. the more severe, certain and swift the punishment, the greater its ability to control criminal behavior.

Beccaria believed in order to deter people from committing more serious offenses, crime and punishment must be proportional or people might commit more serious crimes. This is the concept known as marginal deterrence— if petty offenses were subject to the same punishment as more serious crimes, offenders would choose the worse crime because the resulting punishment would be about the same. In contrast, choosing not to commit crime is dependent on the belief that risks outweigh rewards. History of Rational Choice Theory

Classical Theory of Crime Bentham, a British philosopher and utilitarian, said that people choose actions on the basis of whether they produce pleasure and happiness and help them avoid pain or unhappiness.

Punishment has four main objectives: 1. to prevent all criminal offenses, 2. when it cannot prevent a crime, to convince the offender to commit a less serious crime, 3. to ensure that a criminal uses no more force than is necessary, and 4. to prevent crime as cheaply as possible. Classical Theory of Crime

Contemporary Choice Theory After a period of decline, the classical approach to crime began in the mid-1970s. Rehabilitation of criminals came under attack. The new theme was that criminals are rational actors who plan crimes, fear punishment and deserve to be penalized for their crimes.

James Q. Wilson and Contemporary Theory James Q. Wilson discounted the positivist view that crime was a function of external forces, such as poverty, that could be altered by government programs. Wilson said that efforts should be made to reduce criminal opportunity by deterring would-be offenders and incarcerating known criminals.

Wilson believed that people who are likely to commit crime lack inhibition against misconduct, value the excitement of breaking the law, have a low stake in conformity and are willing to take greater chances than most persons. Wilson said that if these people could be convinced that their actions would meet with severe punishment, only the totally irrational would commit crimes. James Q. Wilson and Contemporary Theory

Classical theory has evolved into a theory based on intelligent thought processes and criminal decision- making. The decision to commit crime is shaped by human emotions as well as thoughts Other influences have an impact including social relationships, individual traits and capabilities and environmental characteristics. The new version of ration choice theory holds that human behavior is willful and determined. James Q. Wilson and Contemporary Theory

Concepts of Rational Choice Law-violating behavior occurs when an offender decides to risk breaking the law after considering both personal and situational factors. Reasoning criminals carefully select targets and their behavior is systematic and selective.

Crime—Both Offense- and Offender- Specific Offense-specific—offenders will react selectively to the characteristics of an individual criminal act. Offender-specific—criminals make decisions about whether they have the abilities (skills, need, alternatives, resources, physical prowess) to commit a successful criminal act. There is a distinction between crime and criminality—crime is an event; criminality is a personal trait based on factors of economic opportunity, learning and experience, and knowledge of criminal techniques.

Although not identical, rational choice theory and routine activities theory both claim crime rates are a normal product of criminal opportunity and agree that this is a key element in the criminal process. Crime—Both Offense- and Offender- Specific

Structuring Crime Criminal decision making is based on an assessment of personal needs and capabilities as well as an assessment of the criminal event. Decisions must include what (opportunity), where (usually familiar territory), when (night time is still preferable) and whom (the most vulnerable) to target.

Targets are sometimes chosen in order to send a message rather than to generate capital. Example: drug dealers respond to three types of violations: Market-related (partners in trade, rivals, etc.) Status-based (character has been challenged) Personalistic (autonomy or justice are jeopardized) Structuring Crime

Rational Theft? Common theft-related crimes seem to be random acts of criminal opportunity, however, these acts may be carefully assessed for risks; i.e., professional shoplifters (boosters) use complex methods in order to avoid being caught. Burglars certainly appear to make rational choice, especially in planning. They prefer to commit crimes in permeable neighborhoods (those with greater than usual number of access streets from traffic arteries into the neighborhood.

Rational Drug Use? Research shows that drug use is controlled by rational decision making. Users report that they begin taking drugs when they believe that the benefits of substance abuse outweigh its costs. Drug deals are not spontaneous acts motivated by rage, mental illness or economic desperation, but rational business enterprise engaged in by highly motivated players.

Rational Violence? Some crime experts believe violence is a matter of choice and serves specific goals: Control Retribution Deterrence Reputation

Rational Robbery? Street robbers are likely to choose victims who are vulnerable and pose no threat. About 3/5s of all violent felons in one study, were more afraid of armed victims than of police. About 2/5s avoided a victim because they believed to be armed Almost 1/3 indicated they had been scared off, wounded or captured by armed victims.

Rational Killing? The conscious motive is typically revenge for a prior dispute or disagreement among the parties involved or their families. Although some killings are motivated by anger and aggression, others are the result of rational planning. Even serial murderers tend to pick their targets with care.

Rational Sex Criminals? It appears that sex crimes are highly irrational, motivated by hate, lust, revenge— emotions that defy rational planning. However, sex criminals report using ration thought and planning when carrying their crimes.

Rational Airplane Hijackers? People who hijack airplanes are rarely considered rational. However, even hijackers may be rational decision makers. The threat of apprehension and severe punishment deter many individuals from this crime.

Eliminating Crime Some people cannot resist the allure of crime, often describing the adrenaline rush that comes from successfully executing illegal activities in dangerous situations (known as edgework). So, how can it be controlled or eliminated?

Potential offenders must be convinced that: Crime is a poor choice that will lead to hardship and deprivation, not rewards. Crime is not worth the effort; it is hard work. Crime brings pain not easily forgotten. Eliminating Crime

Situational Crime Prevention Crime prevention can be achieved by reducing opportunities people have to commit particular crimes. Situational crime prevention began in the 1970s in the U.S. Key to this concept is defensible space—signifying crime can be prevented or displaced through the use of residential architectural designs that reduce criminal opportunity (i.e., well-lit housing projects that maximize surveillance.

Situational crime prevention can also involve developing tactics to reduce or eliminate a specific crime problem. These efforts can be divided into five strategies: Increase the effort needed to commit crime Increase the risks of committing crime Reduce the rewards for committing crime Reduce provocation /induce guilt or shame for committing crime Reduce excuses for committing crime Situational Crime Prevention

To manage crimes, there must be crime discouragers: Guardians—monitor targets Handlers—monitor potential offenders Managers—monitor places Situational Crime Prevention

Reducing Crime Through Surveillance Americans are not accepting of implications from this surveillance technology. Often this presents challenges to the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Situational Crime Prevention: Benefits Diffusion—in preventing one crime, another may be prevented as well. Discouragement—crime control efforts targeting a certain locale may help reduce crime in surrounding areas and populations.

Situational Crime Prevention: Costs Displacement—crime is not prevented but deflected or displaced to other targets. Extinction—crime reduction programs may produce short-term success, but benefits dissipate as criminal adjust to new conditions. Encouragement—reduction programs increase rather than decrease the potential for crime.

General Deterrence This theory holds that crime rates are influenced and controlled by the threat and/or application of criminal punishment. If people fear being apprehended and punished, they will not risk breaking the law. Severity, certainty and speed of punishment may also influence one another. However, the certainty of punishment seems to have a greater impact than its severity or speed.

Not only does the actual chance of punishment influence criminality, so too does the perception of punishment. People who perceive they will be punished for crimes will avoid doing those crimes. If the probability of arrest, conviction and sanctioning increase, crime rates should decline. General Deterrence

Tipping Point/Crackdowns If the certainty of punishment could be increased to critical level (tipping point), then the deterrent effect would prevail and crime rates decline. Local law enforcement agencies have responded with crackdowns—sudden changes in police activity designed to increase the communicated threat or actual certainty of punishment.

Punishment and Deterrence Severity—an increase in severity of punishment does not always decrease the crime rate. Morality, shame and humiliation is important in deterrence if a person has a sense of moral beliefs or would not want to disappoint others, i.e., family/friends.

Speed (celerity) of punishment and deterrence—the faster the punishment is applied, the more closely it is linked to the crime, therefore, the more likely it will serve as a deterrent. Punishment and Deterrence

Analysis of General Deterrence Why apprehension and punishment fails to deter crime— Assumption of rationality of a criminal Compulsive behavior of many criminals Need (underclass most often commit crimes) Greed Misperception—some persons easier to deter

Capital Punishment as a Murder Deterrent There are three types of research on the death penalty and murder: Immediate impact studies—executions should deter murders but they do not. Comparative research—jurisdictions that have capital punishment compared with those that don’t; no reduction in homicide rate where death penalty is imposed. Time-series analysis—no association between the frequency of execution and the murder rate from 1984 to 1997 and 1974 to 2001 studies.

Specific Deterrence Criminal sanctions should be so powerful that known criminals will never repeat their criminal acts. However, offenders sentenced to prison don’t have lower rates of recidivism than those with more lenient community sentences for similar crimes.

Perhaps, punishment may bring defiance rather than deterrence Also, perhaps the stigma of harsh treatment labels people and locks offenders into a criminal career instead of avoiding one. Criminals who are punished may also believe that getting caught twice for the same type of crime is remote. Specific Deterrence

Domestic Violence Studies Arrest and conviction may lower the frequency of reoffending—supporting specific deterrence. However, some studies have found that batterers were not phased by arrest, prosecution, probation, incarceration or treatment.

Incapacitation Incapacitation effect—if locked up for long periods of time, the opportunity for these offenders to commit crime is reduced and the crime rate is lowered. However, it may be that crime rates are lower because potential criminals now fear punishment and are deterred from crime—an effect of general deterrence.

Three Strikes Laws Many believe these don’t work because: Most three time losers are on the verge of aging out of crime. Violent crime sentences are already severe. More prisoners will increase the already high price of prisons Racial disparity in sentencing could occur. Danger for police as two time offenders might violently resist a third arrest Prisons already may contain the highest frequency criminals.

Public Policy Implications of Choice Theory The concept of criminal choice has created justice policies known as just desert. This concept is concerned with the rights of the accused—the offender should not be treated as more, or less, blameworthy than is warranted by the nature of the offense.

Blameworthiness is based on the level of harm caused by the crime and the degree of fault in commission of the crime. Fault is measured by: Offender’s intent Offender’s capacity to obey the law Offender’s motives for committing the crime Defendant’s role in the offense Public Policy Implications of Choice Theory

The just desert model holds that retribution justifies punishment because people deserve what they get for past deeds. This model’s influence is seen in sentencing models that give the same punishment to all offenders committing the same type of crime. Public Policy Implications of Choice Theory