Rational Choice theory

 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 decisionmaking 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.    

 The general assumptions of rational choice theory can be summarized as follows: 

1). Humans are purposive and goal oriented;
2). Humans have sets of hierarchically ordered preferences, or utilities;
3). In choosing behavior, humans make rational decisions with respect to:
a. the utility of alternative behaviors with reference to the hierarchically ordered preferences,
 b. the costs of each alternative, and
c. the best potential to maximize utility (Turner, 1997, p. 354).

According to the current rational choice theoretical framework, decision-making models 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 an individual and the situational context of decision-making. Specifically, empirical testing 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 activity (Paternoster, 1989).
Two subsidiary theories are at the center of modern rational choice theory: situational 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 manipulate the environment to reduce opportunities likely to lead to crime. In essence, situational crime prevention theory aims to portray criminal activity as harder, riskier, and less rewarding in the hopes of reducing criminal activity.   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 structurally significant phenomena” (p.390). Essentially, whether an individual commits a crime 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 rational decision to commit a crime significantly increases with involvement in unstructured socializing with peers.