Describe the rational choice theory of crime.   OUcourse.htm

What aspects of crime are hard to explain in this way?

Rational choice theory is an agency driven explanation as to why people commit crimes.

It theorises that most criminals are rational thinking individuals who choose to commit crimes, based on the gains involved balanced by the risks. If the gains are high and the risk of detection and punishment are low the act is committed, if the reverse is true the act is not. Whatever other factors are in effect the decision to act is a conscious one .It does not take into account other more structural influences i.e. biology upbringing and culture.

This theory however has flaws; are all criminals rational? Can a decision to commit a deviant act be considered rational? Some people see crime as a valid way of life and their choice to commit crime could indeed be a rational one, however there seems to be a scale of acceptable crime. Thefts from large stores or benefit fraud are not as frowned upon as violence and paedophilia, thieves could be considered rational whereas paedophiles are not. The idea of normative crime and acceptable crime play a part in rationality it seems.

Also some areas of crime cannot be justified purely by decision alone. Some, like property crime seem to fit perfectly, the increase in consumer goods along with a decline on legitimate means to acquire them does lead some to see crime as a valid career choice.

Also the overworked police force and inadequate justice system means detection and/or strict punishment is less likely. The climate of fear in some areas also ensures information will not be passed to the police thus making crime less of a risk.

Even this however cannot be conclusive; many people want consumer goods and are without the means. Not all of them commit crimes to acquire them. Why do criminals feel they have a right not to work for their possessions like the rest of society?

Other forces must be at work even in property crime and fraud.

Other areas are harder to justify this way i.e. violent crime, rape and paedophilia. These acts are considered more deviant than fiddling the state or a bit of shoplifting. These crimes stray more into what is seen as irrational crimes. Can the decision to abuse a child be considered rational? Are all who commit deviant crimes (as opposed to acceptable crimes) mentally ill?. Or are the structural influences just as important?

Serial killers enjoy what they do; they enjoy the pain and fear of their victims. This is considered irrational to most and both biology and upbringing seem to have an effect here. Thrill crimes are another area of highly emotional crime, they are performed for enjoyment; the high these crimes bring cannot be explained purely rationally (the biological factors of low seratonin levels seem more apt here)

The rising gang culture in some areas seems also to be seen by the public as deviant and by the gang members as rational. They choose to be in the gang, however often this decision is influenced by culture and upbringing and is therefore not purely rational.

So in conclusion it seems there are so many areas of crime, and the way in which they are viewed differs from person to person that no one theory can stand alone as a reason. This leads us to believe that the cause of crime is not simply any one theory but an amalgamation of all. Structural influences cannot be ruled out but neither can rational choice.