ABSTRACT
Rational choice theory in criminology is often considered a direct descendant of the classical theories of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, which focus on the importance of the benefits (or utility, Bentham) and costs (or punishment, Beccaria) of crime in the decision-making of self-interested or rational actors. In their view, purposes can be instrumental or emotional, and they do not have to be laudable, make sense to the general populace, or even necessarily be criminal. Crime-specificity is considered important because not all crimes meet a particular offender's purposes, and not all offenders have the intelligence, nerve or skills to commit all crimes. While the rational choice perspective (RCP) framework continues to provide guidance for practical research and crime-preventive purposes, it has been subject to a number of different types of criticism. Criticisms of the bounded rationality component of RCP have occurred repeatedly since the mid-1980s.
