What the differences and similarities between the "rational choice theory of crime" from Cornish and Clarke and "rational choice theory" from Gary Becker (1968)? I have seen studies in criminology that use both theories, but I could not find any study that clearly explain differences/similarities...
while the work of Cornish and Clarke, and Becker sees the concept of Rational choice as based on the moral judgement of neutralises the effects of crime, theirs differences lay in our they perceive to be operable. For instance, Clarke and Cornish maintain that crime can be reduced in absolute terms through Situational Crime Prevention strategies: that is, if we control, reduce or alter the environment context for which crime to occur then chance of crime reduction to 0% may be possible. However, Becker takes a more realistic approach and that is, although the alteration of the environmental context may help reduce crime to 0% ultimately this is unlikely to happen as the offender will find ways to rationalise their actions.
Rational choice is not explicitly about morality. It is about preferences and constraints interacting to make choices. Morality can come into play for our preferences.
The primary difference between the work of Clarke/Cornish and Becker is that Becker's work puts forth a formal model of choice (Ehrlich extends this works so that the choice of criminal activity is on a continuum) whereas Clarke/Cornish use rational choice as a guiding principle to understand why people choose criminal alternatives.
I doubt that Clarke/Cornish would argue that reducing crime to 0 is possible. Yes you can remove all easy targets, but opportunity will always be there for those motivated enough. Think in terms of residential burglary. Cost and livability are going to prevent everyone from living in a fortress.
in addition to above contributions:
Gary Becker's work on the economic approach to policing is obviously consistent with Chicago School neoliberal economics. Becker argues that the police (and the justice system more broadly) ought to determine, in dollar terms, the costs vs. benefits of any enforcement or crime prevention strategy. Enforcement strategies ought to be cost beneficial: Becker uses the example of maximizing the dollar benefit of unlawful parking enforcement... If the police patrol the same area too frequently they are wasting money because there won't be enough newly illegally parked vehicles to tag with a fine sufficient in sum to offset the cost of the deployment. For the same reason if they patrol too infrequently then they'll lose potential income from fines as they'll miss opportunities from newly illegally parked vehicles. Becker argues that the police must find the optimal patrol frequency to maximize benefit and minimize cost in monetary terms. This approach, Becker argues, can be applied to all forms of crime management. There is some newer (2010) work done in Latin America on implementing an economic approach. You can look at Di Tella, Edwards & Schargrodsky (Eds.) The Economics of Crime: Lessons For & From Latin America.
The following paper, influenced by Becker (1968), assumes rational choice in the sense that “Each criminal maximizes expected utility defined as expected benefit (from crime) minus expected cost (imprisonment).”
Hausken, K. and Moxnes, J.F. (2005), “The Dynamics of Crime and Punishment,” International Journal of Modern Physics C, 16, 11, 1701-1732.
Article The Dynamics of Crime and Punishment
Becker believes in rational choice which is a cost benefit analysis based on an intrinsic, and individual self interest. He does not entertain morality. Becker feels that criminals make a rational choice to commit crimes because they see a profit in the crime and a benefit that outweighs the cost of getting caught or even the possibility of getting caught. Perhaps stricter laws and punishments may alter this cost benefit rational choice decision to commit crimes.
Dr Reagan
ISTANDWITHELI