Criminal Decision-Making

doi:10.1017/9781009119375.041

41 - Criminal Decision-Making

from Part V - Other Legal Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024

Edited by

Matthew T. Huss and

Monica K. Miller: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman: Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss: Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

People undertake a decision-making process when they perceive a criminal opportunity although these decisions are often not purely rational. To clarify this process, several theories have been developed to explain how criminal decisions are made. Three such theories – deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and routine activity theory – along with major concepts from each theory, are examined in this chapter. Among the topics covered are the celerity, certainty, and severity of punishment, the utility of cost–benefit analysis, and the necessity of considering the role of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians in explaining a criminal event. The limitations of a purely rational approach to criminal decision-making and how opportunity, incentive, emotion, and irrational thinking affect these decisions are also discussed. Finally, the practical and policy implications of these results are explored, after which recommendations for future research focusing on the methodology and domains that influence these decisions are made.

Keywords

criminal decision-making deterrence doctrine rational choice theory boundedness routine activity theory

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 634 - 646

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009119375.041 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x.Google Scholar

Armstrong, T. A., & Boutwell, B. B. (2012). Low resting heart rate and rational choice: Integrating biological correlates of crime in criminological theories. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.11.001.Google Scholar

Blakemore, S. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2012). Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature Neuroscience, 15(9), 1184–1191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3177.Google Scholar

Boivin, R. (2018). Routine activity, population(s), and crime: Spatial heterogeneity and conflicting propositions about the neighborhood crime-population link. Applied Geography, 95, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.04.016.Google Scholar

Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632.Google Scholar

Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing and crime reduction: An update of an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09372-3.Google Scholar

Buchen, L. (2012, April 18). Arrested development. Nature, 484, 304–306.Google Scholar

Clarke, R. V. G., & Newman, G. R. (Eds.). (2005). Designing out crime from products and systems: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 18). Willan Publishing.Google Scholar

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589 Google Scholar

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer.Google Scholar

Crone, E. A., Bullens, L., van der Plas, E. A. A., Kijkuit, E. Z., & Zelazo, P. D. (2008). Developmental changes and individual differences in risk and perspective taking in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 20(4), 1213–1229. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579408000588.Google Scholar

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.Google Scholar

de Jong, E., Bernasco, W., & Lammers, M. (2020). Situational correlates of adolescent substance use: An improved test of the routine activity theory of deviant behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(4), 823–850. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.2038c252.Google Scholar

Delpech, D., Barrion, H., & Johnson, S. (2021). Systematic review of situational prevention methods for crime against species. Crime Science, 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00138-1.Google Scholar

Erickson, M. L., Gibbs, J. P., & Jensen, G. F. (1977). The deterrence doctrine and the perceived certainty of legal punishments. American Sociological Review, 42(2), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094607.Google Scholar

Gibbs, J. P. (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier.Google Scholar

Grasmick, H. G., & Bryjak, G. J. (1980). The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Social Forces, 59(2), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/59.2.471.Google Scholar

Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47(4), 1331–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00177.x.Google Scholar

Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the “culture of now.” Social Policy and Administration, 41(3), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00550.x.Google Scholar

Hill, B., & Paynich, R. (2014). Fundamentals of crime mapping (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett.Google Scholar

Johnson, S. B., Dariotis, J. K., & Wang, C. (2012). Adolescent risk-taking under stressed and non-stressed conditions: Conservative, calculating and impulsive types. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(2 suppl), S34–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.04.021.Google Scholar

Lindegaard, M. R., Bernasco, W., Jacques, S., & Zenebergen, B. (2014). Posterior gains and immediate pains: Offender emotions before, during and after robberies. In van Gelder, J.-L., Elffers, H., Reynald, D., & Nagin, D. (Eds.), Affect and cognition in criminal decision-making (pp. 58–76). Routledge.Google Scholar

Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., & Cothern, L. (2000, April). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Justice Program, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Little, G. L. (2004). Treating juvenile offenders and at-risk youth with MRT: Comprehensive review of outcome literature. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 13(2), 1–4.Google Scholar

Little, G. L. (2005). Meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy recidivism results from probation and parole implementations. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 14(1–2), 14–16.Google Scholar

Little, G. L., Robinson, K. D., Burnette, K. D., & Swan, E. S. (2010). Twenty-year recidivism results for MRT-treated offenders: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Community Corrections, 19(3–4), 15–16, 34.Google Scholar

Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Chalfin, A., & Wilson, T. (2016). Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology, 54(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12097.Google Scholar

Lynch, M., Stretesky, P. B., & Long, M. A. (2018). Situational crime prevention and the ecological regulation of green crime: A review and discussion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 679(1), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218789080.Google Scholar

Miljkovic, D. (2005). Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality. Journal of Socio-Economics, 34(5), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2003.12.031.Google Scholar

Miller, J. (2013). Individual offending, routine activities, and activity settings: Revisiting the routine activity theory of general deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(3), 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811432641.Google Scholar

Mulford, C. F., Blachman-Demner, D. R., Pitzer, L., et al. (2018). Victim offender overlap: Dual trajectory examination of victimization and offending among young felony offenders over seven years. Victims and Offenders, 13(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1196283.Google Scholar

Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century: A review of the evidence. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670398.Google Scholar

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27(3), 467–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054102.Google Scholar

Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397.Google Scholar

Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 765–824. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol100/iss3/6.Google Scholar

Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00489.x.Google Scholar

Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–450. https://doi.org/10.1086/655357.Google Scholar

Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2018). Celerity and deterrence. In Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (Eds.), Deterrence, choice, and crime: Contemporary perspectives – Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 23, pp. 187–210). Routledge.Google Scholar

Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (1997). Low resting heart rate at age 3 years predisposes to aggression at age 11 years: Evidence from the Mauritius Child Health Project. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 1457–1464. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199710000-00029.Google Scholar

Sharp, C. (2008). Theory of mind and conduct problems in children: Deficits in reading the “emotions of the eyes.” Cognition and Emotion, 22(6), 1149–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701667586.Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 2). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Soderstrom, H., Blennow, K., Sjodin, A.-K., & Forsman, A. (2003). New evidence for an association between the CSF HVA:5-HIAA ratio and psychopathic traits. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 74(7), 918–921. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.74.7.918.Google Scholar

Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002001.Google Scholar

van Gelder, J.-L., de Vries, R. E., Demetriou, A., van Sintemaartensdijk, I., & Donker, T. (2019). The virtual reality scenario method: Moving from imagination to immersion in criminal decision-making research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 451–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818819696.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D. (2015). The decision to commit crime: Rational or nonrational? Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law, & Society, 16(3), 1–18.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D. (2017). Modelling the criminal lifestyle: Theorizing at the edge of chaos. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D. (2020). Neutralization, moral disengagement, and delinquency in adolescence: Testing the reciprocal effects of proactive criminal thinking and guilt on future offending. Justice Quarterly, 37(2), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1537401.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D., & Morgan, R. D. (2019). Certainty of punishment and criminal thinking: Do the rational and non-rational parameters of a student’s decision to cheat on an exam interact? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 30(2), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2018.1488982.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D., Morgan, R. D., & Scanlon, F. (2019). The moderating effect of criminal thinking on certainty of apprehension in decisions to engage in antisocial behavior: Replication and extension. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64(3), 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13905.Google Scholar

Walters, G. D., Ponce, R., Piñero, M. A., & Ernest, K. D. (2021). Criminal thinking, certainty of apprehension, and the decision to engage in antisocial behavior: A study of day treatment program clients. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(2), 636–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14633.Google Scholar

Weaver, F. M., & Carroll, J. S. (1985). Crime perceptions in a natural setting by expert and novice shoplifters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(4), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786696.Google Scholar

Zafirovski, M. (2012). Beneath rational choice: Elements of “irrational choice theory.” Current Sociology, 61(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392112465872.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.