Beaudry-Cyr2016-Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment
Beaudry-Cyr2016-Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment
Beaudry-Cyr2016-Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment
net/publication/314837382
CITATION READS
1 83
1 author:
Maude Beaudry-Cyr
University of South Florida
12 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Maude Beaudry-Cyr on 20 January 2020.
Maude Beaudry-Cyr
University of South Florida
maudebeaudry@mail.usf.edu
Abstract
Rational choice theory is one of the core criminological theories. While its earliest roots can be
traced back to classical criminology, the rational choice theoretical framework has more recently
felt the influence of routine activity theory and situational crime prevention. As it stands, rational
choice theory assumes that participation in criminal activity is the result of a rational decision-
making process by which the costs and benefits associated with crime are consciously weighed.
An individual may decide to participate in criminal activity if the benefits of crime are
determined to be greater than its costs.
Rational choice theory and deterrence theory are both core theories in classical
criminology. Central to the ideology of deterrence theory is the idea that crime can be deterred if
the expected rewards of a criminal behavior are outweighed by the negative consequences
associated with that criminal behavior. As a modern counterpart of deterrence theory, the rational
choice perspective assumes that man has the power and ability to freely choose his own actions
and behaviors. Inherent in the rational choice framework is also the principle of the “utility” of
partaking in a certain behavior. What is meant by this is that as one progresses through the
decision-making process, costs and benefits of potential outcomes are weighed, and rational,
conscious choices are made to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. According to this
utilitarian principle, individuals freely choose to engage in criminal activity because crime is
perceived as gratifying, rewarding, and easy. However, considering the theory’s assumption that
man is rational by nature, it is assumed that the threat or fear of punishment should result in the
individual conforming to the central idea of deterrence. The general assumptions of rational
The linkage between man as a rational being and criminal behavior dates back to the
seventeenth century, at a time when more naturalistic views about human behavior began to
replace the predominantly religious approaches to crime. Many of the basic principles of rational
choice can be found in Leviathan ([1651] 1960), in which Thomas Hobbes argued that people are
rational actors seeking to better their interests, regardless of the outcomes on others. Clearly,
chaos within societies would ensue from such behavior were it not for the “social contract”
argument, which suggests that individuals agree to sacrifice a certain level of freedom in order to
More than a century later, some of the ideas from Hobbes’s work were applied to
criminal behavior to begin laying the foundation for classical criminology. According to the
works of Beccaria ([1764] 1996), and in time Bentham ([1789] 1948), people possess free-will
and are therefore empowered to choose their own behaviors. They argue that in a conscious
effort to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, individual decision-making involves the process
of weighing of the costs and benefits of actions. Criminal activity is thus expected to take place
whenever a decision is reached that the benefits associated with committing a crime outweigh the
perceived consequences of the action (Becker, 1968; Cornish & Clarke, 1986; McCarthy, 2002).
While many of the present criminological theories see punishment as the best deterrent to
crime, rational choice theory focuses instead on prevention. As such, Beccaria proposed that
swift, severe, and certain punishment that is proportional to the crime being committed will serve
as the most effective deterrent (Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn, 2009). Accordingly, due to the
seemingly large increase in the number of incarcerated criminals over the past few decades,
rational choice theory has returned to the forefront as a potentially viable explanation for
criminal behavior.
are believed to vary by crime type, and therefore crime is not considered to be random (Cornish
& Clarke, 1986). Rather, criminal activity is believed to be the product of the interaction between
across various offense types is suggestive of some degree of foresight and planning among
criminals, in addition to some modifications in behavior to account for “proximal and distal
contingencies” (Cornish & Clarke, 1986, p.13). The rational decision-making process of the
offender also distinguishes between “criminal involvement” and participation in the “criminal
event”. Criminal involvement is based on factors such as moral codes, previous learning
experiences, and personal experiences with crime, and refers to the decision regarding the
willingness to commit crime in order to satisfy needs. Criminal events, on the other hand, refer to
specific offenses that an individual may decide to commit. The decision to carry out the crime is
heavily influenced by contextual and situational factors, such as immediate need for money, as
well as the perceived costs and benefits of the crime (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Guerette, Stenius,
& McGloin, 2005). This dynamic nature of rational choice decision-making is implicit of the
modernized theory. In sum, a constant revolving cycle of planning, adapting, and evaluating
information leads to the decision-making process involved with present and future criminal
choice theory, also known as situational crime prevention, and routine activity theory. The first
theory, situational crime prevention theory, was advanced by R.V. Clarke and later incorporated
into his rational choice theory framework. Founded on the idea that people commit crime based
on situational factors in addition to the crime itself, situational crime prevention attempts to
situational crime prevention theory aims to portray criminal activity as harder, riskier, and less
Consistent with the rational choice perspectives, routine activity theory focuses on the
characteristics of crime rather than on those of the actual offenders (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
Specifically, the authors examined how the role of opportunities in the rational decision-making
process can converge with certain aspects of everyday life to increase an individual’s inclination
toward criminal activity. According to the theory, three elements must be present for a crime to
occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardianship.
Consistent with the tenets of rational choice theory, Felson and Cohen (1980) argue that
predatory violations occur under conditions that are “neither random not trivial, but rather are
is largely dependent on the interplay between motivation, opportunity, and the targets that are
present in his or her everyday life. In a more recent assessment of the principles of the routine
activity perspective, Osgood and colleagues (1996) extended the situational explanation of crime
to explain individual differences in offending among a sample of young adults. The authors
reported that a large portion of delinquent behaviors occur during periods of informal and
unsupervised socializing with peers, away from home and authority figures. Specifically, they
found that routine activities are strongly associated with a wide range of delinquent and criminal
behaviors, including heavy alcohol use, illicit drug use, and dangerous driving (Osgood et al.,
1996; Kubrin et al., 2009). The authors conclude that the likelihood of an individual making a
As the modern counterpart of deterrence theory, the rational choice theoretical framework
offers a logical explanation for criminal behavior founded on the premise of man as an agent of
free will and rational decision-making. From this point of view, an individual’s likelihood of
committing a crime is thus based on a relative balance of risks and rewards; crime will only be
deterred if the costs associated with criminal activity outweigh the benefits received if the crime
were committed. Given that this principle of utility is at the base of the rational choice
framework, its direct ties and implications to deterrence and crime control policy should come as
no surprise (Paternoster & Piquero, 1995; Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003). Effective crime deterrence
policy should follow the most basic tenet of rational choice theory and acknowledge that
individuals seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. As suggested in the works of Beccaria
([1764] 1996), policymakers should strive for laws that are swift, severe, and certain, and yet
remain proportional to the crime committed. It should also be noted that empirical support for
crime prevention and reduction incentives grounded in a rational choice framework and aimed at
the reduction of situational opportunities for criminal activity has been reported in numerous
case studies (Clarke, 1997). While the simplistic nature of these measures is undoubtedly a great
from emerging as a result of crime policies with short-term deterrent effects. The immediate
benefits to society presented by rational choice theory and situation crime prevention may be
attractive from a policy point of view, yet much remains to be tested of this core criminological
perspective. Future research should continue to investigate the validity and potential applicability
of rational choice concepts to crime control policies and crime prevention programs.
SEE ALSO: Crime and Prevention; Deterrence Theory; Routine Activities Theory
Beccaria, C. [1764] (1996). Of crimes and punishments. (J. Grigson, Trans.) New York, NY:
Marsilio Publishers.
Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political
Economy, 76, 169–217.
Bentham, J. [1789] (1948). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislations. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-604.
Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish & R. Clark (Eds.), The reasoning
criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Felson, M., & L.E. Cohen. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity
approach. Human Ecology, 8(4), 389−405.
Guerette, R., Stenius, V., McGloin, J. (2005). Understanding offense specialization and
versatility: A reapplication of the rational choice perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 77-
87.
Hobbes,T. [1651] (1960). Leviathan: Or the matter, form and power of a commonwealth
ecclesiastical and civil. Yale University Press.
Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and
deviance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnson, L. D. (1996).
Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635-655.
Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common
delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law & Society Review, 23, 7-40.
Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the
“resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 95-120.
Turner, J. (1997). The structure of sociological theory. 6th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.