Rational Actor Model in Criminology: Analyzing Offender Decision-Making

The Rational Actor Model or Rational Choice Theory is based on the assumption that an offender seeks to benefit themselves from their criminal behaviour and that such behaviour involves making decisions and choices however rudimentary it is. This essay will examine the use of the model as a framework in understanding crime.

The process of making choices and decisions regarding a crime involves a measure of rationality within the limits of time, ability and relevant information. The rational element is found to fit some forms of offending and in offenses pathologically motivated and impulsively executed. According to the model, the rational element is basically about how incentives and constraints affect behavior. The traditional approach of criminology is to see criminals being impacted and driven by their social conditioning and environment. However, economics-based theories have portrayed offenders as rational decision makers. Offenders analyse the risks of a crime and compare its expected profits and take decisions of whether they should commit the crime. There is a cost-benefit analysis.

The cost-benefit based approach indicates crime is chosen and committed based on the expected benefits. Thus, if the benefits of crime are high and the costs are low, offenders will commit the crime. If the benefits are lower than the cost, there is less likelihood of the crime to occur. This also indicates that the costs of crime are high, there may be an assumption that a rational offender may be restrained or deterred from committing the crime. Offenders adopt a goal-oriented approach towards committing crime by adopting rationality to measures potential costs and benefits involved in the crime.

A cost-benefit analysis is present in most crime prevention efforts and its evaluation and assessment. If there is a positive outcome, it is understood that the overall benefit is greater than the overall cost. This represents the analysis of a risk involved in a crime and a level of rationality being used in the commission of crime. There are two premises the offender considers. They are cost-benefit of offending and perception or beliefs on the offence. Recently, the rational choice theory has been found the most appropriate theoretical criminological perspective used to understanding the process of money laundering. Money laundering involves a complex network of agents an individuals and financial transactions across the globe. The ability of the rational choice theory to understand the crime indicates the importance of the theory in criminology. Its application to money laundering found that the uppermost level of organised criminality strictly adopts a risk diverse process in making a consistent rational decision. It is not just the cost benefit perspective alone. It is also the perception or beliefs of the offender on the offence and the context. For example, in case of an internet policy abuse in a corporate set up, these three premises are relevant to understand the crime. The belief of the offender plays a key role in determining the intention to commit the abuse.

An offender’s behaviour is subject to limited or bounded rationality. Their decision-making is less than perfect as it reflects the imperfect conditions under which the decision is taken naturally. Humans are not perfect in processing information and the choices they make are often made quickly without all the information regarding the cost and benefit. Thus, not every crime can be explained using rationality. A person has limited memory capacity while processing information regarding a complex problem-solving task. As a result, they use heuristics to process information within their limited bound at the possibility of making a mistake. The rationality is therefore bounded or constrained and thus, not rational. This shows the inadequacy in the rational choice theory. Further, applying the social control theory, it is also found that self-control and opportunities in a deviant action have impacts on each other. Self-control predicts the action in a low-cost situation. Utility predicts the action in a high-cost situation.

The rational choice theory is a utility-based conception of crime that focuses on calculating risks and rewards of a crime. However, a different aspect of the theory could be found where the risk and benefits are not at all considered by offenders. For example, regarding how burglars select a house, the preferred targets are terraced houses, houses without a garage or a central heating or air-conditioning system, houses near the burglars' residences. Burglars rely on effort-related attributes. Risk-related attributes are not important for them. They do not prefer to distinguish between targets. The rational element in a crime may not play a significant role when it comes to power crimes or crimes that pursue power. For example, power transnational corporations exert a high level of power at the expense of states. Illegal dealings, including bribery, between such corporations and the states are examples of power crime. This a new aspect of corporate governance and behaviour, which is also deeply shaped by globalisation of the economy. The new structure of corporate governance may have made the rational-choice questionable or redundant.

To conclude, the notion of choice in a crime indicates rationality. This is the assumption with which the Rational Choice Theories begins. However, not every choice could be considered rational. A person’s rationality is bounded or limited with their limited memory processing capability, limited information, and social and personal situations. Hence, this theory is a general theory as the cost-benefit rationality approach cannot be applied to every crime. Continue your exploration of Criminal And Terrorist Behaviour with our related content.

Bibliography

Books

Cornish D and RV Clark, The Reasoning Criminal: Rational choice Perspectives on Offending (Springer-Verlag 1986).

Cornish DB and Ronald V. Clarke, The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending (Transaction Publishers 2014)

Fernández A et al, Highlights of Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Complexity: The PAAMS Collection International Workshops of PAAMS 2018, Toledo, Spain, June 20–22, 2018, Proceedings (Springer International Publishing 2018)

Johnson E and John Payne, ‘The Decision to Commit a Crime: An Information-Processing Analysis’ in Marvin Scott (ed.), The Reasoning Criminal Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending (Taylor & Francis 2017)

Piquero AR and M Hickman, ‘The Rational Choice Implications of Control Balance Theory’ in by Alex R. Piquero and Stephen G. Tibbetts (eds.), Rational choice and Criminal Behavior (Routledge 2002)

Paternoster R and R Bancman, Explaining Criminals and Crime (Roxbury Publishing Company 2001)

Zolfaflit S et al, ‘Factors Influencing the Outcome of Money Laundering Investigations’ in Abdul Rafay (ed.), Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing in Global Financial Systems (Business Science Reference 2021)

Journals

Gilmour N, ‘Understanding the practices behind money laundering–A rational choice interpretation’ (Bernhardt M and Volkan Topalli, ‘The Situational Dynamics of Street Crime’ (2016) The Wiley Handbook on the Psychology of Violence 179.

2106) 44 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 1-13.

Hayward K, ‘Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’’ (2007) 41(3) Social Policy & Administration 232-250.

Holmes L, ‘Good guys, bad guys: transnational corporations, rational choice theory and power crime’ (2009) 51(3) Crime, law and social change 383-397.

Loughran TA et al, ‘Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual‐level panel data’ (2016) 54(1) Criminology 86-112.

Seipel C and Stefanie Eifler, ‘Opportunities, rational choice, and self-control: On the interaction of person and situation in a general theory of crime’ (2010) 56(2) Crime & Delinquency 167-197.

Vandeviver C et al, ‘A discrete spatial choice model of burglary target selection at the house-level’ (2015) 64 Applied Geography 24-34.