How Offenders Make Decisions: Evidence of Rationality
| Author | Dr Rachael Steele |
Introduction
The Rational Choice approach to crime is closely aligned with the dominant ethos of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales (Jones, 2008). The current UK criminal justice system essentially sees an individual as responsible for his or her actions, and applies punishment as a deterrent for engaging in illegal behaviour (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974). The Rational Choice Theoretical approach has at its core an assumption that a decision to offend takes place, and that such a decision is taken by a reasoning and (at least minimally) rational individual, weighing up the costs and benefits of the action. This view of individuals as makers of fully-reasoned decisions has been criticised for lack of realism. Instead, Cornish and Clarke (1987) describe individuals as acting within the limits of their ability, the information available, and time pressures. Cornish and Clarke refer to this as 'Bounded Rationality' (1986). This approach recognises that decisions are affected by the individual's perceptions as well as the circumstances in which they find themselves. Newer iterations of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) place the motivation of the individual as central to decision making, and state that an understanding of the offender's value hierarchy is necessary to understand their decision making.
This investigation seeks to explore the basic assumptions of this approach, that a decision is always at the heart of an offence, and that individuals weigh up their perceived costs and benefits in order to make such a decision.
Rational Choice theories of offending
Early theories of crime, viewed the individual as having free will, and as being capable of guiding his own destiny (Monachesi, 1955). These assumptions of free will and rationality have remained central to the field of criminology since its beginnings (Taylor et al., 1973), and are direct precursors of the modern Rational Choice Theory.
The application of RCT to criminology has been an influential approach, being particularly popular during the 1980s and 1990s when much work was undertaken to examine how rational decisions are made, and if this could be applied to criminal behaviour in individuals. Early iterations of the approach stated that potential offenders would avoid offending for fear of potential punishment (Akers, 1990). The assumption is that individuals act under free will, and in doing so will seek to avoid costs, and that the rewards of an action or behaviour will be weighed against those costs.
However, this approach has been criticised, in particular the assumption of the 'normative' status of the individuals making a decision. Cornish and Clarke (1987) suggest that individuals are unlikely to go through such a deliberate, calculating mental process and 'intuit' the values and costs of an action, being unable to process information to the level assumed by this normative model (Cherniak, 1986). Instead, offenders operate under a 'bounded rationality' in which offenders are seen as making a weighted decision, but in a more 'rudimentary and cursory way' than advocated by the classical economic approach to decision making. It is also recognised that while an individual can make a measured decision based on expected utility of various outcomes, their range of actions may be limited by circumstances.
The central tenet of an RCT of crime that offenders are active, rational beings encourages researchers to find out exactly what an individual's subjective perceptions of costs and benefits are, and whether through applying this approach, crime can be explained sufficiently well. Furthermore, if a decision is fully understood then logic could theoretically be applied to change similar future decisions. When the theory is applied to real people, and real offenders, it is difficult to assume that decisions are made in this fully informed manner and that any individual could possibly process and be aware of every factor that may affect the outcome.
Studies of Rational Choice and the offending experience
Rational Choice Theory has been applied to various types of offence, ranging from shoplifting to violent offences. In 1992, Corbett and Simon applied RCT to driving offences, finding that offenders viewed the likelihood of receiving a penalty for poor driving as low. A study of shoplifters by Schlueter, O'Neal, Hickey and Seiler (1989) suggests that 'official' costs are not considered as a deterrent. Goals were identified as including money, convenience and the 'challenge'. Schlueter et al. thought it important that non-monetary goals were recognised as motivating the behaviour of the offenders. Carroll and Weaver (1986) also studied shoplifters, finding that they did think about risk, and were well aware of the penalties, but set this aside once focused on their actions.
There have been several studies carried out to investigate how RCT explains burglary, such as Wright and Decker's 1994 study suggesting that burglars were clear about the benefits, such as monetary gain, drugs, and social standing, but tried not to think about things going wrong. As well as robbery (Feeney, 1986), corporate crime (Paternoster & Simpson, 1993) and 'car-jacking' (aggravated car stealing) (Jacobs, Topalli & Wright, 2003), RCT has also been used to try and explain the commission of non-acquisitive offences, though to a lesser extent. For example, Beauregard and LeClerc (2007) applied RCT to the offending process of sex offenders. Results from interview suggested that the participants were rational, although bounded in their rationality, and that decisions were being made at each part of the process leading up to the offence. In a similar way, Topalli (2005) describes how violent offenders can use cues to 'read' a situation to their advantage and help them guide events.
Despite the close alignment between current crime management in the UK and the Rational Choice approach (Jones, 2008), the number of studies relating this theory to actual offender experiences is limited. Many studies on the RCT of crime use non-offending populations, and measure intention to offend, rather than examining actual offending, a drawback when applying findings to real world situations. This study therefore aims to investigate the self-report narratives of a range of offending individual's histories to examine if there is any evidence of decision making, and what factors the individuals themselves sees as pertinent.
Methodology
Given that the aims of this research included obtaining the offender's perspective on whether a decision making process takes place, it was appropriate to adopt a qualitative methodology. In particular, the interview technique was utilised as the best way to collect the type of data that would inform the research question. This interview was semi structured in style, including areas the researcher wanted to cover, but with enough flexibility to allow the participant to talk tangentially, and to feel free to include whatever information he or she felt was pertinent. A similar approach was used by Zamble and Quinsey (1997) who used this technique to research the criminal recidivism process. Zamble and Quinsey employed a semi-structured interview, in which they asked their...
To continue reading
Request your trial