Violent Crime Trends and the Rational Choice Theory

While there are a variety of methods used in the collection of data concerning current violent crime trends, one of the most reliable and useful is the Uniform Crime Report. At this point in time, the Uniform Crime Report, or UCR, is the most comprehensive report of criminal acts available as data is collected yearly by the FBI, evaluated, and published. Records from over 17,000 law enforcement agencies are collected, and then classified into Part I and Part II crimes; with Part I crimes including the violent and malicious acts that are of most concern here, such as criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, etc (Siegel, 2006, p. 30). Furthermore, the UCR uses several different methods of reporting crime data in order to enhance understanding and application of the information: figures to express reported crimes and arrests, figures expressing crime rate per people, and figures in the changes in prevalence and rate of crimes. These three method aid in better tracking and understanding of crime trends throughout the years, including the trends in violent crime perpetration.

According to 2006 data approximately 460 crimes per 100,000 Americans are reported by law enforcement agencies, a rate that indicates a 5% increase of all violent crimes, save rape (Siegel, 2006, p. 39). Unfortunately, this crime rate hike also carries over into property crime such as robbery which was also reported as experiencing a 6% increase in the 2005 – 2006 period (Siegel, 2006, p. 42). However, it is also important to keep in mind the overall decrease in crime in the United States. Previous 1995 data reported a shocking crime rate of 684 crimes per 100,000 people; today that rate has fallen to the abovementioned 460 crimes per 100,000 people. Furthermore, even with the recent hike in violent crime, the current homicide rate for the U.S is significantly less than in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the homicide rate was at a national high of 24,000 a year. Our current rate of homicide is 17,000 per year; not a good rate, but notably lower than the previous two decades (Siegel, 2006, p. 42).

Just as there are a variety of methods for collecting and evaluating violent crime trends, there are also a number of methods for collecting information about the experience of violent crime victims. This is an important area as it provides law enforcement and victim help organizations information pertinent to treatment, victimization patterns, and ideas for crime prevention. The best source for this data is currently the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is a nationwide survey of a large sample of people ages twelve and up, detailing victimization experiences. The upside to the NCVS is that since it is a self-report survey, many of the crimes that go unreported to law enforcement officials are reported on the survey. For example, Siegel (2006) notes that the UCR reported that approximately 90,000 rapes occur each year; however, the NCVS reported 200,000 rapes actually occur (p. 36). This is a total of 110,000 rapes that go unreported to law enforcement officials each year! Because of this discrepancy, the NCVS is a vital source of information.

Just as the UCR lacks some validity, so too does the NCVS. The data collected and compiled by the NCVS is both advantageous and disadvantageous because of the nature of the way in which it is collected. Because it is a self report survey, information unavailable to law enforcement, and thus the UCR is available to the NCVS. However, for this same reason, the data reported can also bare flaws due to human error in reporting, memory lapses, and honesty. It is also important to note that the NCVS is unable to report incidence of murder, and of drug abuse, for rather obvious reasons. Both the flaws of the UCR and the NCVS should be kept in mind when considering the trends and experiences they report.

According to 2006 NCVS reports that instances of violent crime, assault, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape and sexual assault have all decreased in recent years; and Siegel (2006) reports this trend as a decline in victimization that has thus far lasted just over a decade, beginning in 1993 (p. 68). Furthermore, property victimization rates have also fallen significantly, another encouraging piece of data. Also encouraging is the information on victimization patterns that has come from current, and former, NCVS reports. Both social ecology and victim characteristics seem to indicate patterns by which predictions of victimization can be made. Central city dwellers have the highest chances of victimization, with the rate decreasing as one gets further from the city. Furthermore, the highest rate for violent victimization (i.e homicide) is found in disorganized inner-city communities; and the rate of rape and assault is highest during the nighttime to early morning hours (Siegel, 2006, p. 69).

The NCVS reports also predict victimization rates based on victim characteristics such as gender, age, race, and social status. Gender reports indicate that males are more likely to fall victim to violent crimes, while women are more likely to be targeted sexually and by someone they know. Age indications put younger individuals at higher risk for crime than the elderly, with the changes decreasing significantly by the age of 25 (Siegel, 2006, p. 69 – 70). Social status trends indicate lower income individuals as most at risk, which also correlates with the aforementioned social ecology findings since lower income individuals tend to live in dilapidated and disorganized communities. In contrast, highly organized communities experience higher rates of larceny and burglary, seemingly because they have more to offer the criminal, a concept that will be discuss further during the section on the applications of the Rational Choice theory.

Lastly, race and ethnicity reports put Caucasian Americans at lower risk for crime than their African American counterparts. According to Siegel (2006), this race-victimization discrepancy is a result of income inequality between minority groups and Caucasians that force the former to reside in disorganized communities putting them in the highest risk areas, and thus at the highest risk for victimization (p. 72).

As mentioned earlier, these trends can often be explained using a Rational Choice stance. But what exactly is the Rational Choice Theory? The Rational Choice theory, as the name suggests, seeks to answer the question of whether or not the criminal act and the choice of victim was a rational decision. The Rational Choice Theory assumes that criminals use a number of different factors and a thorough thought process before choosing to commit a crime. These factors include the risk of being caught, the consequences of the crime committed (i.e. jail time, death, familial consequences, etc), personal factors (need, thrill, etc), and situation factors (police force efficiency and presence, guard systems in place, etc) (Siegel, 2006, p. 94). Through weighing each of these, the individual decides whether or not to commit the crime, where to commit the crime, and who to victimize.

Through an understanding of how and why a criminal chooses to commit a crime, and how and why they chose their victim, law enforcement authorities can prevent crimes more accurately, and educate individuals on how to prevent being victimized. Rational Choice asserts a situation in which criminals hold the same ideals and values as society yet use different means to obtain their desired goal. This is an easy and logical concept to apply to nearly every crime. Of course, as with any theory, there are exceptions to the theory, however, even such crimes as assault and drug use can be explained through the Rational Choice theory.

For an example of the application of the Rational Choice theory we’ll take a look at one of the most confounding crimes, murder. Siegel (2006) notes, “Even in apparently senseless killings among strangers, the conscious motive is typically revenge for a prior dispute or disagreement among the parties involved or their families” (p. 99). Furthermore, we can look at the reasons in which a person would purchase and carry a weapon. Would a person purchase and carry a weapon just to have it? Unlikely. While some people do collect weapons, most people who both purchase and carry their weapons are ready to use them. Those living in bad neighborhoods may carry a gun or knife for protection, while others may draw motivation from fear of retaliation, prosecution, or even from the thrill of inflicting pain and death upon another individual. Each and every one of these motives fall under the rational choice theory’s explanation of crime.

For another example, we can turn to drug use. Addiction is often the reason for later drug use, but how did that addiction start? Of course, it started through a very rational decision to try or start using drugs. For further evidence of this, look to the daily habits of drug users and dealers. Both of these parties take extensive pains to hide their use, purchase in secret, and choice a dealer or buyer that is not going to betray them. These are clearly rational choices on the part of drug dealers and sellers. Obviously one’s choice to stop doing drugs may not be as simple, but unless it is forced through a prison or hospital term, it is also a rational choice.

The abovementioned are only two examples of the application of the Rational Choice theory, and these explanations alone aid in better understanding the two above discussed groups and the victims they may choose. By creating situations in which criminals see the disadvantages of crime over the advantages, fewer will choose to commit them. Take the drug situation above. If there are more officers patrolling, stricter drug offense rules, and more narcotics specialists working on police squads, fewer people will seek to use drugs as the consequences are simply too high. There will be a higher possibility of being caught, a higher possibility of a strict sentence, and lower availability of narcotics. Similar principles apply to murder cases in which higher police and security presence, better personal protection, stricter murder charges, and stricter weapons rules make create a situation in which there are more losses to committing murder than to refraining from the activity. Better police presence and community watch programs make victims less accessible, and the possibility of getting caught far higher. Moreover, committing murder becomes a harder crime to successfully pull off.

Rational Choice also helps us gain a better understanding on the motives of the crime. Siegel (2006) describes the most common reasons violent crimes occur as the need to gain control, exacting revenge, deterrence, and the building of a reputation (p. 99). This in turn allows for a better idea of who will be targeted. For example, violence for the sake of reputation would generally be undertaken by gang members seeking a name, or youths seeking to set themselves apart from counterparts or bullies. Retribution would be undertaken by a victim’s families avenging the death or assault of their loved one, by gang members for similar reasons, or by youths targeted at school or in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, there have been a significant number of school shootings in the last decade. Each of the killers professed feeling like outsiders, feeling isolated from their peers, and/or being bullied by teachers and students alike. In turn, they created a plan to seek revenge for the pain and suffering inflicted on them. While many aspects of these mass killings seems irrational and severe, they are indeed products of rational planning, and rational thought.

Taking all of these things into account, one can create a more effective plan for countering crime and caring for the victims. As the idea of the Rational Choice theory suggests, one of the best ways to counter crime is to eliminate or decrease the opportunities for criminal activity (Siegel, 2006, p. 100). This sort of prevention was briefly mentioned above, and includes creating for safely guarded targets, taking actions to better protect victims, better monitoring of potential offenders (as determined by rational choice motivations), and working on factors that will increase the amount of effort and skill needed in order to successfully complete a crime.

Implementing this in the community includes the community itself. Community watch systems, community checks, and security guards are all ways to increase the safety of neighborhoods and community streets. Additionally, enhanced police monitoring systems, and more officers on the street, aid in making committing a crime harder and more risky to the perpetrating individual. Emphasizing the importance of personal security reduces the potential rewards available, as well as makes it harder to commit the crime. For example, LoJack on cars, removable car stereo faceplates; and security plans on bank cards, credit cards, and cell phones, removes the benefits associated with stealing the item. Finally, increasing the penalties and eliminating offender excuses will help to create a situation in which the consequences of the crime outweigh the potential benefits of it. If an individual feels they will spend significant time in jail for assault, they will be less likely to commit the crime. Very few individuals are willing to spend hard time in prison in order to avenge a crime that the criminal justice system can take care of. Especially if that criminal justice system is more reliable (more skilled detectives, higher police presence, and stricter prosecution).

The Rational Choice theory is extremely important in understanding crime patterns, crime prevention, and victimization. Taking a firm stance on crime also encourages the community to take a firm stance, and discourages potential and previous offenders from committing crimes. While the trend in violent crimes has decreased overall, the 5% increase, as shown by the 2006 UCR indicates the need for further crime prevention methods. It is important to implement a number of these methods, and in a number of different communities, including those in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, in order to most effectively reduce the crime rate and improve the state of America’s inner and urban city communities.

References:

Siegel, L., J. (2006). Criminology, 10^th Edition. University Of Massachusetts, Lowell. Thomson.