THE DECISION TO COMMIT A CRIME

Adapted from D. Cornish and R. Clarke (eds.) 1986. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag.

The above figure illustrates the variety of rational decisions that a criminal would make in the decision to commit a crime. Clarke & Cornish, who originally authored this rational choice model, tried to understand the questions that a burglar might ask: Which house offers the best target? Do the neighbors watch out for one another? How hard will it be to gain entrance? What sorts of goods are inside the house?

According to this model, free will is assumed, but there are certain background and situational factors that might predispose someone toward crime. Background factors would include psychological characteristics, like how intelligent the person is; social factors like family background; and demographic factors, like what kind of neighborhood the criminal comes from. Situational factors would include persuasion by friends, arguments with spouse, or whether the person has consumed alcohol or drugs, along with a whole host of other possible situational, or urge-inducing, factors.

Motive is listed as need for money or status, but in this classical view of crime, there is really no need to think about motive. All that is required are some generalized needs: the desire to get ahead, to show off, excitement, etc.

Previous learning and experience refers to direct or vicarious experience with crime. The offender would be comparing the target to others he has been successful with in the past, or if he is new at it, he would be comparing the target with what others have been successful with in the past. This factor also refers to the criminal's self-perception of his/her own skills, ability to elude law enforcement, and get rid of the stuff afterwards.

Blocked opportunities is a concept from strain theory and would probably not be used by a rational choice theorist, but it is the criminal's assessment of what legitimate avenues are available for satisfying needs. The decision to be made is whether the same amount of money, for example, can be made by work, gambling, borrowing, or avenues other than crime. The amount of effort required fits into this as the amount of time spent considering and evaluating whether the rewards (and costs) of crime outweigh alternative avenues for satisfying the same needs.

Readiness to commit crime is best understood as the offender "psyching" up. Again, strain theory offers a good perspective on this as withdrawal of legitimacy or belief in an unjust world, but "neutralization" captures the essence of the idea. The offender engages in self-talk, maximizing the belief that he deserves to rob the house ("That house and everything in it is mine"), and minimizing the belief that others deserve to have stuff ("Those people don't deserve to have all those things").

Last updated: July 12, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.