To discuss critically evaluate theextent to which rational choice theory (RCT) provides an adequate platform forsituational crime prevention, RCT must first be explored. RCT developed fromeconomic theories of crime (Becker, 1968). Under Clarke and Cornish’s newformulation of the earlier ‘choice’ model, decision making is explored in termsof the preferences and needs of an individual. The starting point of RCT is thecriminal’s wish to benefit themselves through their behaviour in a reasoned costand benefit analysis (Clarke and Cornish 1996). Siegal expands on this: “before choosing to commit a crime, thereasoning criminal evaluates the risk of apprehension, the seriousness of theexpected punishment, the value of the criminal enterprise, and his or her immediateneed for criminal gain” (Siegal, 1992:131).Itis necessary to expand upon the term ‘rational’. RCT does not suggest that the decisionto embark upon an offence is objectivelylogical.
Rather, the rational element of the offender’s decision is his subjective analysis and assessment ofthe costs and benefits within that criminal opportunity.Acrime opportunity occurs when the actual or perceived benefits of an actoutweigh the actual or perceived costs. The importance of opportunity in termsof the cost/benefit analysis are pivotal within the RCT framework. This isevident in the British Gas Study of Clarke and Mayhew (1988). A 35% decline inthe number of suicides occurring in England and Wales between the years 1958and 1977 had a direct causal link to the reduction of the carbon monoxidecontent of domestic gas in ovens. Clarke notes the importance of opportunityhere, and the lack of displacement to other methods of suicide is strongevidence in support of the RCT. Upon the removal of a relatively easy death viacarbon monoxide, the perceived costs and benefits of the situation were skewed.RCT assumes that criminals fit withinthe “normal” decision making of noncriminals, as seen in the Clarke and Mayhewstudy (1988), through their interaction with the immediate environment and inthe motives that persuade or dissuade their reactions to that environment (Bernardand Snipes, 1996:334).
A pivotal point to note is the crimespecific nature of RCT; it recognises that different crimes meet differentneeds (Cornish and Clarke, 1986:2). This crime specific focus marks a shift intraditional criminological thought in its focus upon the crime itself, ratherthan the offender. Clarke and Cornish purport that RCT provides a counterweight to theoretical preoccupations with the offender (Cornish and Clarke,1986:2). The four models of Clarke and Cornish seek to address the specificnature of crime and its rationality. The models are as follows: InitialInvolvement, the Criminal Event, Continuing Involvement and Desistance.
Cornish’sfurther development of ‘crime scripts’ focus upon the criminal event itself, inopposing the generally thought of single decision to embark upon the commissionof an offence (Cornish, 1994). Simply, a crime script represents the completesequence of actions adopted prior to, during, and following the commission of aparticular crime (Leclerc 2013). The assumption that offenders arerational, goal-orientated actors is rooted within RCT. Clarke and Cornish assertthe notion of human decision making – RCT accepts, on a universal level, thathumans seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain; this being no differentfrom the offender to the nonoffending person.
