Explaining Corruption: A Rational, Calculated Choice?

Abstract

Martinson (1974: 25) declared that ‘with few and isolated exceptions, rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism’. This ‘nothing works’ statement affected the claims that modern democratic states had the capacity to rehabilitate and/or treat offenders and recidivism. With officially recorded crime increasing the social/bio-psychological approaches that had dominated the discourse on crime for many years were challenged by ‘right realism’, which proposed that the causes of crime are within the individual rather than biological or caused by inequality in the social structure. Instead of theoretical debates on why people commit crimes (even though right realism is a theory as to why people commit crime) this line of thought favoured a pragmatic and realistic approach to crime prevention. The notion of individual responsibility therefore was embedded as a central tenet of a range of political and policy approaches associated with a conservative view of personal responsibility, behaviour and accountability, with the criminal law defined by the state and its composition as non-problematic with a focus predominantly on street crime. These views are expressed in what is referred to as socio-biological (Wilson and Herrnstein 1985), rational choice (Clarke 1980; Cornish and Clarke 1986) and stress that significant and meaningful reduction can be achieved by accepting and recognizing that crime is a quasi-economic endeavour. Since individuals are seen as rational, swift punishment, mostly incarceration, was suggested as it would deter and incapacitate offenders.