1. The Development of Rational Choice Theory
Chapter Four
The Development of Rational Choice Theory

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. History of Rational Choice Theory
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.

5. 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.

6. Classical Theory of Crime
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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. James Q. Wilson and Contemporary Theory
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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Crime—Both Offense- and Offender-Specific
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.

14. 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.

15. Structuring Crime
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)

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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?

24. Eliminating Crime 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.

25. 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.

26. Situational Crime Prevention
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

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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. General Deterrence
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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. Punishment and Deterrence
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.

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. Specific Deterrence
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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. Public Policy Implications of Choice Theory
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

45. 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.