Crime Prevention Fact Sheet Series
ACN:112969481
Rational Choice Theory
Prepared by Amanda Wilson
Rational choice theory is a criminological theory developed by Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish (1986)1 which
attempts to explain why people commit crime. Based on the principle of expected utility in economic theory, it
suggests that a person will make a rational choice as to whether or not they will commit crime based on a
cost-benefit calculation.
Put simply, the theory postulates that if the benefits of committing a crime outweigh the potential costs, then the
person will choose to commit the crime. Potential benefits of committing crime may include: the acquisition of
goods or property, including money; convenience; excitement; or kudos. Potential costs of committing crime may
include: apprehension; charges; legal sanctions; or incarceration.
Rational Choice Theory
Potential Benefit – Potential Cost = Choice
Rational choice theory provides a useful conceptual framework from which to approach crime prevention.
It suggests that in order to reduce crime we need to: look for ways to increase the perceived risk of apprehension;
reduce the expected rewards of crime; and find ways to make crime more difficult to commit. The following table
illustrates how this can be achieved.
Increase the Risk
• Extend guardianship:
e.g. go out in a group at night,
leave signs of occupancy, carry
a phone
• Assist natural surveillance:
e.g. improved street lighting,
defensible space design,
support whistleblowers
• Reduce anonymity:
e.g. taxi driver IDs, school
uniforms
• Utilise place managers:
e.g. CCTV for busses, two
clerks for convenience stores,
reward vigilance
• Strengthen formal surveillance:
e.g. red light cameras, burglar
alarms, security guards
Reduce the Rewards
• Conceal targets:
e.g. off-street parking, genderneutral phone directories,
unmarked bullion trucks
• Remove targets:
e.g. removable car radios,
women’s refuges, pre-paid
cards for pay phones
• Identify property:
e.g. property marking, vehicle
licensing and parts marking,
cattle branding
• Disrupt markets:
e.g. monitor pawn shops,
controls on classified ads,
licence street vendors
• Deny benefits:
e.g. ink merchandise tags,
graffiti cleaning, speed humps
Increase the Effort
• Target harden:
e.g. steering column locks
and immobilisers, antirobbery screens, tamper-proof
packaging
• Control access to facilities:
e.g. entry phones, electronic
card access, baggage screening
• Screen exits:
e.g. ticket needed for exit,
export documents, electronic
merchandise tags
• Deflect offenders:
e.g. street closures, separate
bathrooms for women,
disperse pubs
• Control tools/weapons:
e.g. “smart” guns, disabling
stolen mobile phones, restrict
spray paint sales to juveniles
Source: Table adapted from Cornish, D B & Clarke, R V 2003, ‘Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions:
a reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention’, Crime Prevention Studies, vol.16, pp.41-96.
1
Cornish, D & Clarke, R V (eds.) 1986, The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending, Springer-Verlag, New York.
www.chdpartners.com.au