Biological and Classical theories

Chapter 12

Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory

In This Chapter ▶ Taking a look at the theory that preceded rational choice theory

▶ Weighing the risks and rewards of crime

▶ Figuring out appropriate — and effective — deterrents

▶ Poking some holes in the theory

O ne of the core theories of criminology holds that, for the most part, criminals engage in a rational decision-making process when choosing

to commit crime. This theory, called the rational choice theory, is at the heart of society’s primary response to crime — which is putting criminals behind bars. Many people believe that when you punish crime sufficiently (through jail or prison), a rational person will choose not to commit crime.

In this chapter, I discuss the ramifications of the rational choice theory after taking a brief look at its forbearer, classical theory. I finish with a discussion on the limits of the theory.

Taking a Quick Tour through Classical Theory

In the late 18th century in many European countries, criminal justice systems were little more than collections of arbitrary laws unknown to the populace. Confessions by torture were common, and you could’ve been arrested for doing something you didn’t even realize was a crime. Punishment was often arbitrary, excessive to the crime, and not based on any written law. Judges may even have had financial interests in the outcomes of criminal cases, which as you can imagine, made the punishments even more subjective.

178 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why An Italian man named Cesare Beccaria came to the rescue in 1764 when he published the world-changing essay known as On Crimes and Punishments. In this essay, Beccaria rebelled against the arbitrary nature of punishment and laid the foundation for the classical theory of criminology. Beccaria’s utilitarian philosophy (and a key element of classical theory) is summed up in the following excerpt:

In order for punishment not to be, in every instance, an act of violence of one or many against a private citizen, it must be essentially public, prompt, necessary, the least possible in the given circumstances, proportionate to the crime and dictated by the laws.

— Cesare Beccaria

Beccaria sought to bring reason to punishment. He and other like-minded individuals succeeded magnificently, igniting a revolution in Western law. That revolution included doing away with torture, writing down the criminal laws and making them known to the populace, and adding the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In the United States, the principles that Beccaria and others (he can’t have all the credit) promoted were ingrained in the Bill of Rights in 1791, just 27 years after they were first brought forward.

Although the call for proportionate punishment was a crucial part of classical theory, the theory also included another important element: the belief that individuals act purposefully to maximize their pleasure in life. The theory held that people will commit crimes unless they believe that the potential pun- ishments outweigh the pleasures or benefits they gain from committing the crimes.

Calculating the Benefits and Drawbacks of Crime

Over time, classical theory evolved into its modern version called rational choice theory, which holds that criminals think about their actions, weighing the pros and cons (including the risks of punishment) and making decisions based on their calculations.

Analyzing risks and rewards When you need to make an important decision like changing jobs or deciding where to go to college, you may sit down and write out the pros and cons on a piece of paper. You attempt to reason through each option to make the best decision. Most criminals don’t engage in this level of rational thought before

179 Chapter 12: Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory committing crime, but rational choice theorists contend that even though a criminal may not write out the pros and cons of a decision to commit a crime, he does go through a rational decision-making process. That is, he engages in a risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis by asking himself, “What are the risks and rewards of my actions?”

By saying that a decision to commit a crime is rational, rational choice theo- rists are not saying the decision is smart. In reality, rational decisions to commit crimes are likely based on faulty values and bad judgments, but they are, nonetheless, decisions made after weighing risks and rewards. For exam- ple, a person who steals an iPod clearly undervalues the property rights of others, but his decision may still be rational because he believes committing the crime will end not in punishment but in iPod possession.

What are some of the benefits that a person may get from committing a crime? Of course, the answer depends on the type of crime, but here are a few possibilities:

✓ Money or property

✓ Thrills and excitement

✓ Status among peers

✓ Revenge

✓ Dominance over others

✓ A bond with other criminals

Think about a teenage dropout who sees a super smart kid he knew in geom- etry class before he dropped out. The dropout decides to beat up the smart kid. At first glance, this choice seems irrational. What good can come from this action? Indeed, the dropout probably isn’t consciously following a logi- cal progression in his decision making; rather, his decision is partly subcon- scious. But when you break it down, here’s what the dropout may be thinking right before he beats up the smart kid:

✓ I never liked that kid.

✓ He thought he was so smart.

✓ I felt dumb around him.

✓ I’m bigger and tougher than him.

✓ Now that we’re out of the classroom, I want him to know what I felt like.

✓ I’m going to kick his butt.

The reward for committing this crime of assault is primarily a feeling of superiority and dominance over the smart kid. Of course, in making a ratio- nal decision, the dropout must also consider the costs or risks involved. For instance, if he’s caught, he may be arrested for assault.

180 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why But what if there were no costs? Imagine a society without criminal laws. Everyone would have to fend for himself, and the only law would be survival of the fittest. The dropout’s only fear would be that the smart kid may use his geometry prowess to get even.

In modern society, however, the existence of criminal laws provides the most likely risk or cost to the dropout. So before he decides to beat up the smart kid, he probably looks around for a teacher or other adult who could turn him in. Seeing no one, he assesses the risk as minimal and proceeds with the beating. He may also know that because he’s under 18, the justice system can’t treat him as an adult, so not much can happen to him even if he is caught. In essence, the dropout gets to feel dominant over the smart kid without much risk of negative consequences — at least in the short run.

Although the dropout’s rational thought process is partly subconscious, rational choice theorists believe that a lot of crime involves the actual conscious weighing of risks and rewards.

Choosing the type and place of crime Part of choosing to engage in crime is rationally choosing the type of crime to commit. For example, wanting to assert dominance over the smart kid, the dropout from the previous example doesn’t just randomly start committing crime against anyone. He doesn’t choose to burglarize the smart kid’s house or steal his skateboard. Instead, he consciously chooses to commit assault.

Deciding where and when to commit a crime requires a lot of thought, too — perhaps more thought than deciding whether to commit the crime in the first place. After all, if you’re going to commit a crime, you want to be successful. So burglars choose vulnerable homes or stores. Street-level drug dealers pick locations where customers are readily available and police are visible from a distance (so they can run before the cops get to them). Car thieves choose cars that are easy to take and can be sold (either whole or in parts) for the highest profit.

Choosing the time and place of a crime may be based on improving the reward of the crime or reducing the risk of being caught. For example, a robber usually chooses a location near his own home because he knows all the escape routes and, therefore, can reduce his risk of being caught. At the same time, however, the robber also wants the crime to be fairly easy to commit. It’s a well-known secret that most criminals are extremely lazy and unwilling to make extra efforts, even when those efforts may mean increased rewards.

181 Chapter 12: Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory

Factoring in personality and skills Obviously, the personal characteristics of a criminal are tremendously important in influencing the decision to commit crime. For example, the ability to delay gratification often divides criminals from law-abiding citizens. Two people may equally desire an LCD television. One may choose to work for six months and save money to buy the TV. The other person, who can’t stand to delay gratification so long, may decide to run the risk of being caught and steal the TV now.

Some people not only have personality traits that influence their criminal decisions but also develop skills that make criminal choices easier. For example, a significant problem with putting a bunch of criminals in prison is that they learn new criminal skills from each other, which they can use when they’re released. A serial car thief may spend two years in prison, sharing a cell with a drug trafficker. During those two years, the car thief may learn how to conceal drugs in vehicles. When he’s released, the car thief may decide to start trafficking heroin and cocaine.

Meeting the offender’s needs Basically, the benefit the criminal hopes to receive from a particular crime determines which type of crime he chooses to commit and how he decides to commit it. People who want goods or money generally commit property crime. For instance, if I simply want an iPod, I can steal it from my friend’s backpack. But if I want an iPod and I want to show my friends that I’m fearless, I may go into an electronics store, grab one, and run out. In contrast, people who want to feel dominance over others are more likely to commit violent crimes. Someone who wants status in a street gang may look for an opportunity to use his gun against a rival gang, for example.

Generally, people who commit property crime don’t cross over and commit violent crime because the punishment for violent crime is usually much higher. So property criminals, making rational calculations, choose to commit offenses that are less likely to cost them significant prison sentences. For example, a property criminal can choose to commit armed robbery (theft by force) of a jewelry store, or he can choose to break into the store at night and commit burglary. Because robbery is considered a violent crime with a much greater punishment, the property offender is likely to opt for burglary. Robbers, on the other hand, often want more than just property — they want the thrill, excitement, and danger of sticking a gun in someone’s face.

182 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why

Creating Rational Deterrents to Crime Supporters of rational choice theory believe that if the risk of being caught is high enough — and the punishment is severe enough — most crime will be deterred. Before I jump into that discussion, however, I need to point out a few other deterrents to crime, including

✓ The disapproval of family and peers

✓ Moral or religious objections

✓ Recognition that, in the long run, the criminal life isn’t rewarding

Society can benefit greatly from encouraging these deterrents; I discuss the impact of family and society in discouraging crime in Chapter 13. But the reality today is that society spends most of its resources for deterring crime on the threat of arrest and punishment in the justice system.

In this section, I take a look at the different ways society tries to deter people from committing crime through punishment.

Running the risk of being caught (and punished) For the threat of arrest and punishment to be an effective deterrent to crime, potential criminals have to believe their chances of being caught and punished are high. So, how high is the risk of being arrested for a crime? Not very. As I discuss in Chapter 3, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) keeps statistics on the number of arrests for certain serious crimes and calculates the national rate — called the clearance rate — at which reported crimes are cleared by arrests of suspects. Unfortunately, most serious crime doesn’t end in arrest. Figure 12-1 shows the 2007 U.S. clearance rates for a variety of offenses.

Note: These statistics don’t include minor crimes, such as shoplifting, which aren’t even reported to the police unless the suspects are caught. So the total clearance rate for all crime is actually much lower than it appears to be in Figure 12-1.

As you can see, serious violent crimes are solved at a much higher rate than serious property crimes, which means violent criminals face a greater risk than property criminals. Why the difference? For one, law enforcement agencies put a higher priority on solving violent crime, devoting significantly more resources to investigating rapes and murders than thefts and burglaries. In fact, in many communities, a police officer doesn’t even visit your home to take a report when your home is burglarized. In addition, violent crimes, such as rape, assault, and robbery, often involve victims who are eyewitnesses (which means they can

183 Chapter 12: Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory often describe or identify the criminal), while property crimes usually don’t involve eyewitnesses.

Figure 12-1: The clear- ance rates for various

crimes in 2007.

Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter

Forcible Rape

Robbery

Aggravated Assault

Burglary

Larceny-theft

Motor Vehicle Theft

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of Crimes Cleared by Arrest or Exceptional Means, 2007

Clearance Figure

40.0

25.9

54.1

12.4

18.6 Violent crime Property crime12.6

61.2

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Based on the risk component of the rational choice theory, if state governments (and federal agencies) hired enough police officers (and other law enforcing agents), they’d be able to significantly increase the risk of being caught and, thereby, deter much more crime. So why doesn’t the government do so?

The truth is, it has. Between 1992 and 2004, the total number of state and local police agency employees in the United States grew from about 841,000 to 1.1 million — an increase of 23 percent. During that time period, the national crime rate decreased significantly. For example, the violent crime rate dropped by more than half between 1992 and 2004. Of course, criminologists debate about the actual cause of this dramatic decrease in crime, and deterrence from greater police presence is just one of many theories. (See the next section for another potential reason: an increase in the length of prison sentences.)

Adding even more law enforcement personnel would cost U.S. taxpayers a lot of money, and society currently has many other ills calling for tax dollars. In addition, U.S. citizens highly value individual freedom and tend to distrust any government presence that’s too dominant — the kind that would result from having a police officer on every street corner.

184 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why

Increasing the severity of punishment The fear of being embarrassed by an arrest is enough to deter many people from committing crime. (Just think of the mug shots that show up on TV when the latest celebrity is arrested and booked. Imagine having your friends and co-workers see you like that.) But in addition to embarrassment, the type and amount of punishment for a particular crime is very important in a criminal’s risk/reward calculations.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, a movement spread across the United States to significantly increase the punishment for serious violent offenders. Prior to this movement, murderers were commonly released from prison after ten years — sometimes even less. As a result of this movement, a typical sentence for a murderer today is life in prison. I discuss incarceration theories in detail in Chapter 21, but for now here’s what you need to know: One major goal of the movement toward more severe sentencing was to deter violent crime. And some criminologists cite increased punishment as a reason for the dramatic decrease in violent crime since the 1990s.

An unintended result of this movement toward increased punishment has been the filling up of jails and prisons, which results in a lack of space for low-level offenders. Thus, serious offenders get longer sentences, but shoplifters, drunk drivers, or even wife beaters may not get any jail time at all. Judges try imposing other creative punishments, such as community service or fines, on low-level offenders, but if a criminal isn’t deterred by the fear of arrest, this minimal punishment isn’t likely to have much of an effect, either.

What about the ultimate punishment — death? I discuss this topic in detail in Chapter 21, but suffice it to say, criminologists, politicians, and citizens alike engage in a vigorous debate about whether the death penalty deters crime.

Aiming for speedy punishment Some people believe that a long delay between the arrest and the imposition of a sentence negates the deterrent effect of punishment. Most defendants, for instance, aren’t held in jail while they wait for their trials (or while they wait to plea bargain), so they’re free to commit additional crimes before they experience any punishment. Criminals can rack up quite a few crimes before they ever see the inside of a jail cell.

In addition, most people — including criminals — rationalize their miscon- duct, and as more time passes after their arrest, they can persuade them- selves that they weren’t all that responsible for their crime. By the time

185 Chapter 12: Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory sentencing rolls around a year later, many criminals have completely disasso- ciated the punishment from their criminal conduct. Therefore, they feel that the punishment is unwarranted and, thus, resent their treatment.

Deterrence requires people to associate punishment with the crimes they commit. If criminals don’t make that association, they’re more likely to commit more crime in the future.

One of the criticisms of the death penalty is that long delays of 10 to 20 years from sentencing to execution mean that people don’t fear being executed if they commit murder. (In Chapter 21, I discuss the death penalty in detail.)

Punishments throughout U.S. history Today the primary means of criminal punishment is jail or prison. U.S. courts require certain minimum standards for inmates, including access to daylight and fresh air, exercise, protection from the elements, and quality meals. In the past, however, particularly before the passage of the Bill of Rights, society imposed some very different forms of punishment. Here are just a few that used to be popular:

✓ Stocks and pillories: Punishments involving stocks and pillories were slightly different from one another, but generally, stocks and pillories were wooden frames that held criminals in place so that other citizens could insult them and throw rotten food at them.

✓ Public humiliation: When criminals received this punishment, they had to wear clothes with big letters sewn on them, representing the crimes they’d committed. For example, a T stood for theft.

✓ Whipping: This punishment involved lashing someone on the back with a whip. The number of lashes depended on the seriousness of the crime.

✓ Tarring and feathering: This punishment involved hot tar being applied to the

criminal’s skin and then feathers being stuck on top of it. Criminals who received this punishment were then paraded around town. Tarring and feathering was more often a vigilante punishment than something imposed by a judge.

✓ Burning at the stake: A common punishment throughout history, burning at the stake was outlawed in England in 1790. (Contrary to popular myth, the Salem witch trials of the 1690s didn’t end in the burning of witches, but rather in hangings — except one poor soul who was executed by having a pile of stones placed on top of him.)

✓ Hanging, drawing, and quartering: This punishment was used primarily in England for men who committed treason, but it was also used in Canada and may have once been used in New York (before the United States became a nation). The criminals were dragged to a location where they were hanged for a short period of time. They were then disemboweled and made to watch while their innards were burned. The criminals were then cut into four parts and beheaded. The body parts were placed around the country as a deterrent to other criminals.

186 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why

Preventing the rewards According to the rational choice theory, when you reduce the rewards for crime, or make the commission of the crime more difficult, reasonable adults are less likely to commit crime.

Society can employ many strategies to reduce the benefit of crime to criminals, particularly for property crime. Among private corporations, these strategies are known collectively as crime prevention or loss prevention. For example:

✓ Many retailers lock up items that thieves highly value, such as electronics and even baby formula. In addition, most retailers also have theft- prevention devices — which they attach to high-priced items — that set off an alarm when someone leaves the store without paying for an item.

✓ Most banks place a pack of dye next to their tellers, who put the pack in the middle of some cash when they’re being robbed. The dye explodes some time later, turning the cash (and perhaps the robber) red.

✓ And, of course, the security industry makes billions each year by hardening targets: making buildings and businesses less vulnerable to crime through alarm and camera systems.

Examining the Limits of Rational Choice Theory

Understanding rational choice theory is tremendously important to understanding why someone may commit crime. But it fails to account for a number of circumstances that, as a budding criminologist, you simply can’t ignore. I cover some of those circumstances in the following sections.

Considering humans who behave irrationally

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

— 1 Corinthians 13:11

This famous biblical saying is meant to inspire people to act wisely, but the truth is, adults often act unwisely, like children — or worse.

Contents Regarding Crime as a Rational

Decision: Rational Choice Theory 177

Taking a Quick Tour through Classical Theory 177

Calculating the Benefits and Drawbacks of Crime 178

Creating Rational Deterrents to Crime 182

Examining the Limits of Rational Choice Theory 186

187 Chapter 12: Regarding Crime as a Rational Decision: Rational Choice Theory Sometimes people look at situations and say to themselves, “Screw it,” and then dive right into criminal conduct. Humans often throw reason out the window. Imagine a cop responding to a 9-1-1 call of a man threatening his family with a knife. (Disturbingly, such conduct is common.) Trying to change the man’s cost/benefit analysis by telling him he’s going to prison probably isn’t a good strategy. The man is acting irrationally, and the reason behind his conduct is likely one of the following:

✓ Drugs

✓ Alcohol

✓ Mental illness

✓ Extreme emotional distress

As I discuss in Chapter 5, some drugs, such as methamphetamine, can cause a psychosis in which a person acts completely irrationally and violently. Aside from such a physical reaction to drugs, addiction itself often drives people to commit completely irrational acts, such as running great risks for another quick fix.

Similarly, a person who’s drunk usually exercises very poor judgment (you’ve probably seen this at some point). In 2007, 12,998 intoxicated drivers crashed their cars and killed someone. I bet that if asked today, every one of those drivers would say that their decision to drive drunk was dumb. By far, alcohol and drugs are responsible for more crime than any other factor, in large part, because drugs and alcohol cause people to act irrationally.

Mental illness also poses a significant challenge for cops on the street — and for policymakers, in general. It seems like society has more mentally ill people than ever before. Mental health facilities are overflowing, forcing many people with mental illnesses out on the street, where their irrational conduct can often lead to crime.

In 2005, for instance, more than 24 million adults (11 percent of the U.S. population) suffered from serious psychological distress, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. One reason for this high percentage may be the dramatic increase in drug use in the last 40 years. More and more medical evidence shows that mothers who use drugs or alcohol are more likely to have mentally handicapped children. And the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in 2007 that six out of ten drug abusers also suffer from a mental illness. (In some cases, the drug abuse causes the mental illness.)

Of course, numerous other factors contribute to the development of mental illnesses. I discuss mental illness in more detail in Chapter 14, but suffice it to say that the mentally ill often act irrationally when they commit crime.

188 Part III: Figuring Out Who Commits Crimes and Why

Seeing how crime often pays Folks in law enforcement often joke about how they could make a financial killing by becoming criminals. If crime really does pay, a rational (if immoral) person may very well choose a life of crime.

As I discuss in Chapter 8, a lot of people make a lot of money committing crime (namely, in organized crime organizations). Every day, drug traffickers in the United States send millions of illegally earned dollars south of the border.

Society can try to affect a criminal’s risk/reward analysis by decreasing the profits of crime or by increasing penalties. It can also try to address the moral shortcomings of its citizens who believe selling drugs is okay if they can get away with it. But as long as crime pays, even for just a handful of criminals, some people are going to choose to take the risk.

Dealing with the values gap I know of a young man who wants to go to prison so he can move up in the hierarchy of his street gang. According to the rational choice theory, his conduct is perfectly explainable because he has something that he deems important to gain from committing crime. However, that rational explanation doesn’t do society much good.

How did this young man come to place such a high value on his street gang status that he would be willing to give up several years of his life and go to prison for it? If society can begin to understand how a man comes to develop such values, perhaps it can prevent others from going down the same path. But that’s an awfully big if.

Besides rational choice theory, criminologists have developed numerous other theories to try to explain why people engage in crime. I discuss these theories in the next three chapters.