Rational Choice Theory - Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Rational Choice Theory - Essay
Grade = A...

Description

1 SOCIO102 – 20A Essay

Introduction There are many theories within criminology that aim to explain the causes of crime. Two of these theories include rational choice theory and labelling theory. Based on through research, I believe the proposition that ‘rational choice theory offers a more sophisticated, accurate theory than labelling theory, for explaining the causes of crime’ can be considered accurate. First, I will discuss in detail each theory, exploring how rational choice theory believes that all humans are rational beings, arguing that a cost-benefit analysis is performed by criminals before they commit an offence, this process can be disrupted by situational crime prevention methods in which the threat of prosecution deters individuals from acting on a criminal basis (Clarke and Felson, 2017). Next, I will address the key component of labelling theory, exploring the idea of primary and secondary deviance, resulting in an individual adhering to their ‘criminal’ label (Bradley and Walters, 2019).

Rational Choice Theory

The theory of rational choice can be originally traced back to the early works of classical philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678), Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Hobbes Declared that humans generally pursue their selfinterests, including material gain, personal safety, and social reputation (Deterrence Theory: 235). Beccaria further developed Hobbes’s theory, believing that humans are rational beings with free will to govern their own decisions (Deterrence Theory: 235). Similarly, Bentham argues that, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain

2 and pleasure” (Bentham [1789] 1982, as cited in Keith Hayward 2007), this belief is central to Rational Choice Theory (RCT). The theory has since evolved from the works of philosophers, influenced heavily by Derick Cornish and Ronald Clarke (1986). Their theory of Rational Choice places emphasis on the concept of free will and human rationality. Its key argument is that individuals freely choose their conduct based on utilitarian calculation of costs and benefits, the criminal, like every other individual is a rational utility maximiser (Bradley and Walters, 2019). Criminal behavior is more likely to be selected where legal options of goal attainment are not present, or where they appear less rewarding to the individual; in some cases, crime may potentially be less punishing (Becker 1968, as cited in Clarke and Felson 2017). RCT gave rise to the concept of Situational Crime Prevention (SCP). Many believe this crime reduction method is the most efficient and cost-effective approach to reducing current crime rates (Hayward 2007). SCP aims to block opportunities for crime to be committed by changing the environment in which it occurs (Clarke and Felson 2017). This method includes, but is not limited to, increasing security in particular areas. Deterrence has been achieved when a criminal’s calculation of costs and benefits has been affected and the risk of committing outweighs the potential rewards (Bradley and Walters, 2019).

Labelling Theory Labelling theory is a criminological theory that ‘crime’ and being labelled a ‘criminal’ is simply a social construct, devised by those who hold the political power to do so (Bradley and Walters, 2019). Labelling someone as deviant was a process first addressed by George Herbert Mead in the early 1900s, Tannenbaum then further described labelling an individual as deviant, as ‘tagging’ – this is the outcome of societies reaction to deviant behavior (Murphy et al, 2011). This theory diverts the focus away from criminals as individuals, and places emphasis on the role governments and institutions play on crime.

3 There is a widely accepted assumption that society is characterized by conflict over moral and ethical values, the majority accept that there is a moral framework; agreeing that anyone who is labelled as not fitting within this box is a social pariah. Rather than asking why a person engages in criminal behavior, labelling theory asks, “Who defines certain behavior as criminal?” (Tierney, 1996: 141, Taylor, Walton and Young, 1973: 144). Those who society sees as being powerful and influential play the defining role in attributing labels to others (Bradley and Walters, 2019). The labelling process begins with what Frank Tannenbaum calls the ‘dramatization of evil’, this refers to formal prosecutions and trials in which criminals are branded (Bradley and Walters, 2019). One of the key tenets of this theory is the belief that once an individual has been labelled, the process becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which they acknowledge the negative label they have been given and conform to it (Bradley and Walters, 2019). Edwin Lemert subcategorised this theory into primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is the instance the law was first broken. The majority of us have engaged in primary deviance, this initial stage very rarely changes ones identity to that of a criminal. Secondary deviance occurs when there has been an official reaction to the act of primary deviance (Bradley and Walters, 2019), in this stage the individual has been labelled a criminal by the state. Once a criminal record has been established this leads to blocked opportunities, such as limited employment opportunities (Murphy et al, 2011). This factor makes it incredibly difficult for past offenders to reintegrate within society; thus, increasing the likelihood of individuals returning to deviant behaviour as a result of the criminal label and stigma that surrounds them. The process of labelling quite often leads to a spoiled identity. Becker emphasises that what makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs, but whether this label is conferred on the act by the state. In order to reduce crime, Labelling theorists believe in the criminal justice system adopting non-intervention methods of crime control. This involves rehabilitating young and first time offenders, breaking down the stigma

4 of being criminal and assisting them in entering back into society (Bradley and Walters, 2019).

Rational Choice Theory Strengths and Weaknesses

Rational choice theory offers several elements which explain the causes of crime in a sophisticated manner. One of the strengths of the theory is the development of situational crime prevention, Supporters of RCT claim it is the most cost-effective method to reduce current crime problems. SCP is “The use of measures directed at highly specific forms of crime which involve the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in which these crimes occur… so as to reduce the opportunities for these crimes.” (Hough et al. 1980: 1). Effective methods of deterrence include the risk of getting caught, threat of incarceration, public rejection and severity of punishment. It is said to have assisted in creating a legitimated system of criminal justice that is based on equality and punishment in proportion to the seriousness of the crime (Hayward, 2007); this is reflected in the development of the modern prison we’re familiar with. Although upon first reading the strengths of RCT it appears to be a valid method of explaining crime, there are several instances in which the theory is vague and based round assumptions, highlighting many of the theory’s weaknesses. A key assumption is that harsher penalties will cause would-be offenders to stop and rethink their choice of behavior. The problem here is that when RCT is used to guide crime control policy, it operates under the assumption that cost-benefit calculations are driven exclusively by the penalties set forth by legislation (Pratt, 2008). To an extent the theory fails to take into consideration individual levels of impulsivity, prior experiences with criminal punishment and an individual’s perception of the costs of punishment (Pratt, 2008). Research done by Wright and Decker (1994), indicate that burglars

5 often do not weigh up the costs and benefits, taking dangerous and unnecessary risks. This indicates that SCP is not always effective in deterring criminals. Research has shown that often, due to limited time, cognitive constraints and imperfect information, criminals exhibit ‘bounded rationality’ and do not always opt for the optimal solution (Simon, 1957, as cited by Gelder et al 2013). Situational methods of crime prevention, reducing opportunities for crime in particular areas, are not likely to have a drastic impact on crime rates. It often results in the displacement of offending to other times, places, or crimes, with no net reduction in crime statistics (Clarke and Felson, 2017).

Labelling Theory Strengths and Weaknesses

Labelling theory shines a light on the criminal justice system, and the role it plays in contributing to crime. It argues that the law is enforced differently towards different types of individuals, there is an apparent bias within the system. Bradley and Walters (2019) claim that those who hold economic and political power are least likely to be officially labelled criminal. It is common among Western societies for those more frequently labelled as criminals to be youth, gang members, and immigrants (Bradley and Walters). This generalized assumption creates a prejudice towards these types of individuals, criminal or not. This prejudice is often inflicted upon individuals by those of high authority within the criminal justice system, including the police. A study of policemen undertaken in 1953 by Westley, revealed that of the officers interviewed, 37% admitted to inflicting violence on individuals to force their respect (as cited Becker, 1963). This is evidence that people with legal authority are labelling individuals that they believe are deviant, without any evidence to suggest they are deserving of criminal punishment. This is proof that in society, people are labelled deviant, broken laws or not. Although labelling theory is effective in explaining how the criminalization process

6 relates to the issue of crime, it is unable to explain any direct causes of crime itself. The theory clearly indicates the social reaction and consequences of deviance, however, it fails to provide an explanation of primary deviance. Thus, is often referred to as perspective as opposed to theory (Bradley and Walters, 2019).

Conclusion

After comparing the strengths and weaknesses of both Rational Choice and Labelling Theory, I feel as though I can confidently conclude that the proposition that ‘rational choice theory offers a more sophisticated, accurate theory than labelling theory, for explaining the causes of crime’ is true. When compared with labelling theory, rational choice theory offers a more conclusive explanation of an aspect of crime statistics. Rational choice theory is able to determine a direct cause of criminal offending, based in the notion that all individuals are rational beings who perform cost-benefit analyses before engaging in criminal acts. Although there are some drawbacks to this theory, particularly surroundings its inability to account for all potential impacts on decision making, including cognitive constraints, lack of information and the potential influence of alcohol and drugs; I do believe it is more sophisticated in its ability to explain potential causes of crime than labelling theory. Labelling theory resonates with me more due to the fact that it covers a more psychological basis of criminality, accounting for greater variance in cause, recognizing the discrepancies, and prejudices among certain groups and individuals. However, I am unable to say it is a more sophisticated, accurate theory for explaining the causes of crime because it essentially does not explain the initial cause. It clearly indicates how secondary deviance inflicts a criminal label on groups and individuals, yet it serves next to no purpose in breaking down the potential causes of primary deviance. Primary deviance is the initial crime. The way I see it, because primary

7 deviance involved in labelling theory is left without any cause or explanation, I cannot confidently say I believe it is effective in explaining crime. Rational choice theory on the other hand, can do so. I don’t believe it is entirely there yet, but the theory has evolved significantly over the years and continues to do so.

References Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The

8 Free Press of Glencoe.

Bradley, T., & Walters, R. (2019). Introduction to Criminological thought.

Clarke, R., & Felson, M. (2017). Routine activity and rational choice . Routledge.

Deterrence Theory https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/deterrence-theory.pdf

Hayward, K. (2007). Situational Crime Prevention and its Discontents: Rational Choice Theory versus the “Culture of Now.” Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00550.x

Murphy, D. S., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S. C., & Jones, R. S. (2011). The electronic “Scarlet letter”: Criminal Backgrounding and a perpetual spoiled identity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(3), 101118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.560548

PRATT, T. (2008). RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY, CRIME CONTROL POLICY, AND CRIMINOLOGICAL RELEVANCE. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00489.x

9

Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (2013). The new criminology : For a social theory of deviance. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz

van Gelder, J.-L., Elffers, H., Nagin, D., & Reynald, D. (Eds.). (2013). Affect and Cognition in Criminal Decision Making (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doiorg.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.4324/9780203075982...