Rational Choice Theory And The Reasoning Criminal - Term Paper Example

 Rational Choice Theory And The Reasoning Criminal Introduction Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke’s interest in the strategic thinking of law breakers led them to develop the Rational Choice Theory, a new approach to study crime based on offenders’ decision making. The theory “is the byproduct of a symposium devoted to understanding the rational components of offending”, state Cornish and Clarke (214). The authors’ earlier lack of success with dispositional theories of crime related to sociological, psychological or biological disposition to committing crime, and their work on situational crime prevention resulted in their belief that crime is the outcome of choice. Additionally, developing effective crime control strategies was also a part of their concerns. Thus, the authors’ pursuit of policy-relevant research to prevent and control crime led to the creation of the rational choice theory. Neal Shover defines persistent thieves as those who are “distinguished by persistence at common-law property crimes despite their, at best, ordinary level of success” (Shover xiii). All persistent thieves have at least one adult conviction for robbery, burglary, or theft, but they habitually return to committing crime after serving time. Failing to learn their lesson, persistent thieves commit crime over a period of several years, consequently serving multiple jail or prison terms. Their crimes, though victimizing a vast number of ordinary citizens, receive little media attention. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to explain rational choice theory, and to investigate how the theory supports Neal Shover’s research on persistent thieves. Rational Choice Theory According to Clarke and Cornish (1), exploring and elaborating a decision making approach to explaining crime has helped several social scientists in disciplines studying criminal behavior. The various approaches drawn from several disciplines assume that much offending is rational in nature, and the criminal uses reasoning and decision making to undertake criminal activities such as stealing, robbery, burglary, or other forms of thieving. At the same time, however, the thieves were found to have differing concepts, aims, preoccupations, and terminologies; consequently it was difficult to estimate the extent to which they shared common factors. Further, synthesizing the insights provided by the different disciplines to comprehensively and satisfactorily represent criminal behavior was important. Cornish and Clarke (1) suggested the Rational Choice Theory perspective on criminal behavior as the synthesis taking into account all the essential aspects. This theory is aimed at locating criminological findings within a framework specifically suitable for policy relevant research. The rational choice theory starts with the assumption that offenders pursue their own benefit through criminal behavior; this employs decision making and choices, which may sometimes be merely rudimentary; and that “these processes exhibit a measure of rationality, albeit constrained by limits of time and ability and the availability of relevant information” (Cornish and Clarke 1). Further, although this conception of crime was more suitable to certain forms of offending, even in pathologically motivated or impulsively executed crimes, it was found that rational components were present, and that the identification and description of these would be useful in the formulation of crime control policy. At the same time, however, decision making in crime may have differing motivations. Several researchers using survey, qualitative research designs and other ethnographic methods, have found that criminal acts that are similar on legal or other grounds can have diverse subjective meanings, and can be the outcome of different types of motivations. Thus, interviews of 113 Californian robbers revealed that although most committed the offence of robbery for the purpose of securing money, a significant proportion of up to 40 percent of the subjects were motivated by nonmonetary reasons. “They robbed because of anger, a desire for excitement, to impress friends, or to recover money that was owed them” (Feeney 183-184). Though a majority of persistent thieves take to stealing based on their approach of “life is a party,” most of the unlawful activities are related to issues of identity and character rather than securing money. For persistent thieves, criminal identities are normative and evaluative standards. For example, those wanting to be a “good hustler” are directed by their understanding of what this requires (Shover 103). Cornish and Clarke (216) reiterate that “crime is not an unitary phenomenon, and that in reality, different crimes will involve different decisions, not to mention a different number of decisions.” For example, the types of decisions in conducting a robbery will vary from those in carrying out a burglary. The differences pertain to burglars’ need for secrecy in gaining entry into the building, and their avoidance of encountering people; while for robbers it is related to concealing their weapon and selecting a suitable target. Besides such differences in inter-crime decision making, there are distinctions in intra-crime decisions too, as found in residential burglary as opposed to commercial burglary. The methods of entry as well as the time of day will be different for each type of burglary. Additionally, Clarke and Cornish argue that crime specificity being essential, there are further differences between “residential burglary in a middle-class suburb and residential burglary in a lower-class or upper-class neighborhood” (217). Rational Choice Theory: Application of Shover’s Research on Thieves Significantly, Clarke and Cornish (217) assert that for explaining participation in the multiple stages of crime, multiple models would be necessary. Offenders face different decisions when they first decide to commit a crime, termed initiation; after committing several crimes the decisions will pertain to continuation involvement; when deciding to stop committing crime, desistance decision making will be required; and the event decision making model is used where a willing offender uses bounded rational decision making to determine the time, place and method for committing the crime. Rational choice theory supports Neal Shover’s research on persistent thieves. Initiation An offender first recognizes his or her readiness to engage in burglary or other type of theft as a requirement to fulfill specific needs or desires, in terms of the initial involvement model. The initiation of a person into a life of crime involves a decision influenced by psychological, social, and demographic factors, together with the person’s upbringing and prior experiences. However, in many instances, an offender’s immediate situation plays a more important and relevant part than their background. In the decision making related to initiation, “a potential offender will also evaluate legitimate solutions, as well as other illegitimate solutions” (Clarke and Cornish 217). When criminal readiness is established, a potential offender will then require an opportunity to offend. An individual making the decision to offend does not mean that all crime is planned out in advance. Thus, a potential offender requires a criminal opportunity to commit crime. The initiation model of the rational choice theory supports Neal Shover’s research on the primary decision taken by a potential persistent thief for getting initiated into crime. The author states that disadvantage and disrepute reduce the number of options available to potential thieves from working class backgrounds. They also shape the utilities they value and pursue. There is a difference between persistent thieves who commit crime because of a strong and enduring identification with crime as a means of livelihood, and peers whose criminal identification and involvement are weak and fluctuating. This identification influences career choices and decisions regarding participation in criminal activities. Identification means seeing crime “as an attractive and potentially bountiful source of income and livelihood, or simply as a readily available means of resolving immediate problems” (Shover 77). Only offenders who view crime as desirable personal option will invest the requisite time and energy learning about it. The possible lifestyle of comparative ease and comfort with an avoidance of work is another reason for potential thieves getting initiated into a life of crime. Continuation Cornish and Clarke’s continuing involvement model emphasizes factors such as increased professionalism, and alterations in lifestyle, values, and peer groups; these keep the offender in a state of readiness, willingness and ability to continue committing the particular type of offense (217). Thus, “these conditions and circumstances coupled with positive reinforcement will keep the offender involved and offending until an optimum level is reached (Cornish and Clarke 217). The offender will experience an increase in professionalism in terms of knowledge, skills, ability to reduce risk of getting caught, along with improving target selection, increasing the quality or quantity of the loot, and acquiring reliable fencing contacts. The above model of continuation supports Neal Shover’s findings of persistent thieves improving their skills through committing various thefts, and pursuing “life as a party” (Shover 93). The author states that the enjoyment of good times, a lack of concern for serious matters, and withdrawal from obligations and commitments outside of the offender’s immediate social environment are the hallmark of life as a party. Offenders’ efforts to maintain the lifestyle when successful leads to the commission of crimes to continue a pattern of activities experienced as enjoyable. On the other hand, those persistent thieves who are less successful at party pursuits, they commit crimes to prevent or change circumstances found to be threatening (Shover 93). Desistance According to Cornish and Clarke (218), “the desistance model revolves around the offender’s reevaluation of his or her readiness to commit crime and reappraisal of alternatives to crime.” Particular events can influence the offender into rethinking about a specific offence. Thus, reconsidering future burglaries may occur by any type of adverse experience that takes place during the commission of a burglary, such as being surprised by the home owner, being apprehended by the police, or other reasons. Similarly, changes in the offender’s personal life, external events, having children, finding legitimate work, or other occurrences can cause the offender to re-evaluate his or her involvement in crime. Other reasons include transformations in the offender’s environment in which he operates such as decline in the number of potential target, or formation of a neighborhood watch group, which compels the offender to desist from further commission of crime. When the offender takes the decision to desist from crime, he or she has to decide on whether to substitute crime for lawful activities such as legitimate employment, or with different illegitimate activities such as commercial burglary to replace residential burglary. The desistance as choice model reflects the evidence from research conducted by Shover (113) who states that “desistance is the voluntary termination of serious criminal participation.” Thieves eventually stop committing crime entirely. Persistent thieves grow increasingly disenchanted with the criminal life causing them to reduce their expectations for achieving success through criminal means. Further, the allure of crime significantly declines with age. “Criminal careers are patterned changes in offenders' behavior and perspectives during the period bounded by their first and final serious criminal acts” (Shover 120). Further, a large proportion of them abandoning crime do not imply an abrupt or clean process of desistance from crime. Many offenders, specifically those with criminal identities, may minimize the frequency of their offenses, but continue committing crime for months or even years. Event Decision-Making The event model has fewer variables impacting the decision making process, therefore this decision sequence takes less time. A willing offender uses bounded rational decision making to determine how to commit the crime, and takes into consideration the methods, time, place and other factors; and these decisions will be guided by opportunity. The time, place, and process of committing crime will differ based on the opportunities confronted by offenders. Besides individuals making decisions within the context of their current situation and distinctive earlier experiences, they also make decisions according to their perceptions of the consequences, risks, and benefits of crime. Decisions being made only on perceptions, the information utilized in decision making can be incorrect. According to Clarke and Cornish (218), there is a possibility that “external situations may change during the actual decision sequence, which can lead to spontaneous and unwise changes of mind.” This model is reiterated by Neal Shover’s research, where he states that the attractive or bountiful criminal opportunities of a particular place or time can change, and may even disappear in a few years (Shover 49). Thus, decisions pertaining to the situation or event will be based on the situation, the offender’s perspective of the event, his or her choices and consequent experiences until then, and what they hoped to acquire by the commission of crime. Thus, along with opportunity, the methods, time, place and other factors play an important part in event decision making. Conclusion This paper has highlighted rational choice theory,and examined the extent to which the theory supports Neal Shover’s research on persistent thieves. It is evident that the rational choice theory explains the findings from Shover’s research. The four models examined include initiation, continuation, desistance, and event decision-making. These models were found to be reflected in Shover’s research on persistent thieves. Evidence from research suggests that criminal behavior should be seen as the result of the offender’s broadly rational choices and decisions, and not as the outcome of psychosocial factors, as observed by Clarke and Cornish (147). This viewpoint helps to conceptualize models of criminal behavior, such as the rational choice theory, based on offenders’ decision making. Further, the rational choice theory offers the foundations on which to locate existing research, suggests directions for new research, enables policy analysis, and supports the identification of policy initiatives to enhance criminal justice. The rational choice theory is considered adequate to achieve essential policy and research objectives. To fulfill this criterion, it has to be specific to particular types of crime such as that of persistent thieves, and must explain “both the processes of involvement in crime and the decisions surrounding the commission of the offense,” as stated by Clarke and Cornish (147). Crime specific models that take rationality into account require more knowledge on the methods by which offenders assess and utilize available information. This approach related to offenders’ choices and decision making in the commission of crime has the most immediate payoff for crime control efforts towards reducing unlawful activities such as persistent theft. Works Cited Clarke, Ronald V., and Derek B Cornish. “Modeling Offenders’ Decisions – A Framework for Research and Policy.” Crime and Justice – An Annual Review of Research, Volume 6. Eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1985. 147–185. Print. Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke. “Rational Choice Theory.” Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Volume 1. Eds. Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox. New York: Sage, 2010. 214–219. Print. Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke. “Introduction.” The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. Eds. Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986. 1–18. Print. Feeney, Floyd. ”Robbers as Decision-Makers.” The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. Eds. Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986. 53–71. Print. Shover, Neal. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996. Print. Read More