Can we improve security risk assessments by understanding why people commit crime?

Part One: Classicism

Hi friends,

This post is part one of a five-part series, which will be published weekly - give or take a week here and there.

In each post, I would like to discuss a criminological or sociological theory for why people commit crimes.

Why?

Because if you want to stop crimes from happening in your communities and security incidents from happening in your organizations, you need to understand what drives or influences people to commit crimes.

When you conduct your risk assessment, you look at the likelihood and consequence of something happening. Answering the ‘why’ helps you to better assess the likelihood of the risk that you are asking your organizations to invest in or which you are exposing your family to in the community.

For example, if you believe that crimes are committed because of socio-economic reasons, then you may want to elevate your corporate social responsibility game by investing in the community or reducing executive salaries to elevate the living standards of employees. But, if you believe that crimes are committed because people make rational calculations, you may want to invest in controls that emphasize targeted deterrence. Think: someone with big muscles at your front door.

Let’s start.

Why do people commit crimes?

Is it because we’re obsessed with pleasure?

If it is, this is known as classicism.¹ Philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham developed this approach in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Here’s the train of thought:

• People commit crime because they are trying to maximize their pleasure. Who doesn’t like pleasure?!

• People are also rational. So, people subjectively decide what is in their best interest and act accordingly.

• The state (society) can work with this logic. If people are making decisions that benefit them more than it costs them, the state can up the costs. But, to ensure that people make what society thinks is a rational decision, it must ensure that everyone has access to the same information. So, the state must ensure that:

  • people know what the consequences are and that they are proportional to the crime,

  • people know that they will experience these consequences if they commit crime, and,

  • people will experience the consequences quickly.²

What do I like about this approach?

First, it tries to produce a transparent and fair criminal justice system.³ While I am not a great student of history, I understand that there were many years that looked cruel, brutal, unjust, and confusing.

Perhaps, that is even your story wherever you are reading this. If it is, I’m really sorry. If this is a safe place for you, I’d love to hear about that.

Classicism tries to be transparent and “fair” in that its success depends on people making informed decisions about the costs and benefits of committing a crime. But research suggests that most people aren’t aware of the costs.⁴

Second, it tries to give people the sense that they have power to do something about their circumstances - they have free will.⁵ That their future is not entirely determined by their biology, psychology or environment.

Third, it suggests a really practical approach can be taken to security. It suggests that we can reduce crime/security incidents by elevating the costs to doing that which we don’t want people to do.

For example, we can make it more difficult to access an asset, which may deter criminals away from your business. This might work because perhaps the criminal didn’t develop the cardio fitness needed to break through your forced entry door. So, the reward of absconding with your asset isn’t worth their time.

Alternatively, perhaps you work in a highly competitive environment or a critical infrastructure sector and you have a policy that outlines the consequences of stealing your organization’s ‘crown jewels’. If employees believe that those consequences could rupture the social bonds that they have developed at your organization - that they hold so dear - perhaps that is a sufficient deterrence mechanism to prevent crime.⁶

What do I think about this approach?

First, It’s a little narrow for me. Classicism, I think, doesn’t pay enough attention to biological, psychological, or environmental factors. For example, I had a wonderful childhood. I don’t struggle with any illnesses (that I’m aware of), I have both parents. Lots of siblings. We always had a house. We could afford education. I always had more food than I could ever need. I was privileged!

If I didn’t have those things, might I be more inclined to commit crime in order to get a leg up? In order to eat? In order to sleep safely? Perhaps.

Second, I don’t know of too many justice systems that have a sterling reputation for fairness. It seems that our prisons are full of people that have been discriminated against for a few different reasons, all of which are heartbreaking.

So, despite its 200-year history, classicism has yet to achieve its vision of a better criminal justice system than its predecessor.

Third, the idea that people are subjectively rational is helpful. Historically, I thought rational approaches were quite limiting. I remember this one time when I was in first year economics. The professor said that, with some exceptions due to elasticity, people buy based on price.

I always thought that was ridiculous for everyday decisions. Of course, that’s true to the extent that the cost of a Mercedes influenced my decision to buy a Honda. But it’s not true to the extent that I will take a Starbucks over a Tim Hortons any day of the week, regardless of price.

But if we caveat rational thinking with ‘subjective rational thinking’, or “bounded rationality” as Cornish and Clarke use, then we can stand in the shoes of those who may be motivated to commit a crime and reflect on why the potential offender may think it is rational to commit a crime.⁷

What’s next?

Next week, I’m going to reflect on biological, psychological, and sociological positivism. It brings together the ideas that people commit crimes because of factors that are outside of their control and that how we study criminology should be based on evidence instead of pure reason.

Best,

Shawn

1. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 56.

2. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 57.

3. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 56.

4. Kennedy, D. M. (2009) Deterrence and Crime Prevention: Reconsidering the Prospect of Sanction. New York: Routledge, 26.

5. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 57.

6. Kennedy, D. M. (2009) Deterrence and Crime Prevention: Reconsidering the Prospect of Sanction. New York: Routledge, 32-33.

7. Cornish, D. B. and Clarke, R. V. (eds.) (2017) The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Routledge.