Rational Choice Theories and Situational Crime Prevention Rational

“Rational Choice” Theories and Situational Crime Prevention

“Rational Choice Theory” n Economics (language, theory) q q “Expected Utility” = calculation of all risks and rewards Note: This is much broader than deterrence n n Includes risks not associated with criminal justice Same assumptions as deterrence theory q q Human nature = rational, calculating, hedonistic This is because “economic theory” (supply/demand, rational consumers) has same “classical school” roots

Rationality Assumption n How “RATIONAL” is the offender? q PURE = only expected utility (rational calculation of risk/reward) matters n q Few, if any, take this position LIMITED = then, what else matters? n CORNISH AND CLARKE good example

Cornish and Clarke (1986) n Crime as a Rational Choice q q Criminal Involvement: the decision to engage in crime (versus other activity) Criminal Event: factors that influence the decision to commit a specific crime

Criminal Involvement n Choices to become involved in crime, to continue in crime, and to desist from crime q q Each (involvement, continuance, desistence) need separate explanation Involvement decisions are multistage and multifactor, extending over long time periods

Example of factors that explain initial involvement: Background Factors q temperament, intelligence, cognitive style, sex, class, education, neighborhood, broken home… Previous experience q Direct and vicarious learning, moral attitudes, selfperception, foresight and planning Solutions evaluated q Degree of effort, amount/immediacy of reward, likelihood and severity of punishment, moral costs

Criticisms What happened to our “rational” offender guided by “free will? ” q q q In their models, rational thinking and free will are very constrained/limited Not much different from other theories of crime n Borrow liberally from learning theory, psychology, social control theory… At what point does their theory cease to be a “rational choice” model and start to become a learning, social control, IQ theory of crime?

Example of Continuance in Burglary Increased Professionalism q pride in skills, reduce risk (better planning), acquire fencing contacts, skill in dealing with criminal justice system Changes in Lifestyle and Values q choose work to facilitate burglaries, enjoy “life in fast lane, ” devalue legitimate work Changes in Peer group q lose contact with prosocial friends, labeled as criminal, quarrels with family. . .

The Criminal Event n Focus on predictors of specific crimes, look at immediate (situational) factors q n Area q n e. g. , what might lead a person to commit a burglaries in middle class neighborhood? Easily accessible, few police patrols, low security Home q anyone home? , especially wealthy, detached, bushes/other cover, dog, security system. . .

Evaluating Rational Choice n Empirical Support? q Criminal Involvement n q Criminal Event n n n Ethnographic research suggests limited (if any) rational reasoning or weighing of costs/benefits. Ethnographic research somewhat supportive, but many crimes suggest limited appraisals. Parsimony and Scope? Policy Implication?

Routine Activities Theory n n Cohen and Felson (1979): “Crime and Everyday Life” Crime as the Convergence in Time and Space of Three Factors 1. Motivated Offenders (typically ignored) 2. Suitable Targets 3. Lack of Capable Guardianship n Scope: “Direct-Contact Predatory Crimes” q Felson in 1990 s extended to white collar crime, drug crime

Motivated offenders taken for granted n Assumption is that they are always present q n Criticized for this (really a theory of crime? ) Really explains “victimization” or the “criminal event” q Similar to Cornish and Clarke in that respect

Suitable Targets n Value ($, ability to fence) q n n n Some universal ($) some dependent upon offenders environment Visibility (sights and sounds) Inertia (why autos are victimized, high tech movement) Access (cul-de-sac vs open-ended street, garage parking vs. street parking)

Lack of Capable Guardianship n Protection from police? ? q n Informal social control q n n Less emphasis in this over time “…not usually someone who brandishes a gun or threatens an offender with quick punishment, but rather someone whose mere presence serves as a gentle reminder that someone is looking. ” Strength in numbers Time spent at home

Evaluating Routine Activities Theory n Empirical Support q q n Household activity ratio related to crime Criminal “Hotspots” within high crime areas Prison Studies (% time outside of cell) Victimization Studies Criticism? Confirming common sense.

Environmental Criminology and Situational Crime Prevention and n Environmental Criminology q n An umbrella term (catch-all) to describe opportunity theories that focus on the criminal event (e. g. , routine activity theory) Situational Crime Prevention q A policy implication of routine activities/RCT (not a specific theory)

Policy Implications Deterrence vs. Environmental Crim n In deterrence theory, if the CJS (e. g. , threat of arrest/imprisonment) is not effective, the only other option is incapacitation. q n This has been the preferred U. S. strategy Environmental Criminology suggests that we can remove or limit the opportunity to offend q q This has been the preferred strategy in the UK Benefit of this approach over incapacitation? ?

Examples of Situational Crime Prevention (Ronald n Increase Clarke) the perceived effort of crime q q n Increase perceived risks of crime q q n Target hardening (better window locks) Control access to targets (electronic access to parking garage) Natural surveillance (street lights, defensible space) Formal surveillance (red light/speed cameras) Reduce anticipated rewards of crime q q Reduce targets (removable car radios, women’s refuges) Deny benefits (prompt graffiti cleaning)