Ajzen and Madden (1986) included a third factor: Perceived Control. This can help to explain why someone might not commit a criminal act even when everything else supports the action e.g. a teenager may not perceive themselves to have any control to stay out all night because of the problem of justifying their behaviour to the parents.
Both theories assume that criminals and non-criminals weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of committing crime before carrying the deed out. Research has explored the reasons why people give up crime.
People give up crime because:
Of shock i.e. seeing a friend being wounded during a robbery
Of delayed deterrence i.e. dreading a long sentence
This suggests that criminals are now making rational choices about whether to commit a crime or not.
Bennett and Wright (1984) found that burglars are more likely to plan their burglaries than not planning i.e. only 7% of reported burglaries were ‘opportunistic’ whereas 59% burglaries were planned before being carried out.
Burglars recognise the significance of personal abilities to complete a job and plan it carefully. Sampson (1987) found a strong positive correlation between the number of single adults households and the number of burglaries committed on all types of property in the same area.
This table shows the connection between the areas where the percentage of single adult households is medium or high and the high risk of being burgled regardless of what type of property you live in. The evidence shows the values and thoughts that criminals hold towards crime and their perceived control over the situation.
Subjective Norms are social influences (our beliefs and attitudes about what is acceptable and appropriate are influenced by our subjective evaluations about what significant others (parents) might say about our actions).
Berger (1992) investigated subjective norms by comparing attitudes to drink driving in Australia, Norway and America. He found that Norwegians drank a lot but usually stayed at home to drink. Over 70% of this group supported the imprisonment of first offenders for drink
driving offences. Australians also drank a lot but they went out to drink and usually drove home. Only 19% of this group supported first time convictions. The results were similar for the American sample.
Differences in drink driving attributions made by the three groups reveal the power of subjective norms in determining behaviour. A new situation is likely to make us redefine it in terms of the subjective norms.
Pegrebin (1986) found in support to this that non-violent crimes committed by embezzlers were often justified in terms of trust i.e. could they be trusted to use the resources at their disposal even when this meant that they used them to pay off their personal debts. This kind of rationalisation presumably made sense to them but not to their employers.
Fischer (1987) found in relation to rapists a strong positive correlation between traditional male attitudes towards women and beliefs about enforced sexual intercourse.
Scully and Marolla (1984) conducted a study in which they found that 40% of a sample of 114 convicted male rapists in the USA denied raping woman and they justified their behaviour by blaming the victims.
They also blamed their actions on a facilitator.
Facilitator: something that influences you to do the deed that you did i.e. drugs or alcohol
Scully and Marolla (1984) “stated” that convicted rapists have:
“Learned the attitudes and actions consistent with sexual aggression against women including the acquisition of culturally derived vocabularies of motive which can be used to diminish responsibility and to negotiate a non-deviant identity”.
There appears to be enough evidence to suggest that criminals make rational choices about whether to commit a crime or not and that they are responsible for their own actions. However, they may get off with a minor sentence because of insufficient evidence for a higher sentence. Some criminals may escape conviction from the judgements made in the courtroom due to some technicalities in the law.
