Why People Commit Crimes: Rational Theory Examined

Introduction: A Police Officer's Perspective

For this paper, I interviewed a local city police officer. The first question I asked was, "Why do you think people commit crimes?" The response I received was not based in theory at all but was rather curt and somewhat dismissive: the officer laughed under his breath and said, "For all sorts of reasons. Usually they're just not very good people." I asked him then if he thought that everyone who committed a crime was a bad person. He said no — that they just happened to make mistakes sometimes and do something stupid.

I asked him whether he thought that most criminals simply weren't thinking clearly when they committed a crime, or whether they were thinking clearly and were just hoping to get away with it. He said it could be a mix, but that usually it was the latter. I then asked him whether he thought most criminals were rational when committing crimes. He said, "They think they're being rational — but really, in the big picture, I think we all know they're not. They want to risk going to prison or losing their kids or house for a little smack. They want to shoot up right out in broad daylight and risk losing their lives for a little high. I mean, that might sound rational to them at the moment because they want their fix, but I assure you there is no real good reasoning going on there."

Rational Choice Theory and Criminal Behavior

Rational choice theory holds that people make decisions by weighing the costs and benefits of a specific course of action and then acting based on their perception of the risk/reward ratio. It is the ultimate expression of self-interest, according to Miller (2001). Rather than evaluating options from an ethical or moral standpoint, the rational actor asks: "Will this benefit me? What are the risks? What is the likelihood that I will not benefit from this?" Rational theory posits that all actors behave in an inherently self-centered manner, and that actions and consequences are governed by a calculated sense of the extent to which one expects to reap some benefit — either immediate or long-term — from the action.

The theory is rooted in the neoclassical tradition and the Enlightenment, which held that all knowledge should be based on empirical data. Evidence is what supports belief, and rational human beings should act based on the evidence. This perspective helped to shape rational theory, which has since been applied to a range of human activities, from economics to criminology.

The local police officer's response aligns with rational theory to the extent that he suggested people engage in crime because they expect to gain something from it. He said, "They think they're being rational…" and identified several examples in which an individual engaging in criminal behavior looks to gain some benefit from the action. Initially, the officer framed criminality as a problem of morals, but when pressed on the subject he backed away from that position and shifted his explanation toward rational theory — appearing reluctant to judge or condemn anyone outright.

Critiquing Rational Theory's Limitations

As Boudon (1998) notes, however, there are significant limitations to rational theory, since the rationalization of action is only part of the process in determining human behavior. Biological factors, psychological factors, environmental factors, and others all play a role. For instance, social learning theory posits that individuals act — and even commit crimes — because such behavior is learned: they engage in these activities because they observe others doing so (Grusec, 2006). Strain theory offers another perspective, positing that individuals lash out at society as a result of a build-up of internal pressure caused by multiple environmental stressors that they cannot reconcile or process effectively, leading to criminal or anti-social behavior (Agnew, 1992).

The existence of so many competing theoretical perspectives demonstrates that no single theory fully explains the motivations behind human behavior in the sociological or psychological sciences. In most cases, a combination of theoretical perspectives is drawn upon by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike when explaining human actions in court.

Rational theory is most helpful as an economic theory, where it makes intuitive sense for an individual to focus primarily on the risk/reward calculus of a set of options. In the world of economics and finance, removing emotion can help an individual be more objective about which decision will best serve an investment portfolio. In criminology, however, the application is far less straightforward.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.

Boudon, R. (1998). Limitations of rational choice theory. American Journal of Sociology, 104(3), 817–828.

Grusec, J. (2006). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 776–786.

Miller, D. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest. In The next phase of business ethics: Integrating psychology and ethics (pp. 193–210). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.