Within Becker’s standard model of crime, which of the following statements is false regarding the variables of interest?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

First, let's restate the question and all answer options to ensure clarity about what is being evaluated.
Question: Within Becker’s standard model of crime, which of the following statements is false regarding the variables of interest?
Options:
1) Current income is neutral on the propensity to commit crime as changes in income would scale both expected utility and current utility by the same amount.
2) The payoff of the crime is not strategic to anyone as it is fixed once a specific crime is chosen.
3) The size of the fine is set with government’s objective of only deterring the crime, regardless of government revenue targets.
4) The probability of getting caught is influenced by the actions of both government and criminals.

Now, evaluate each option in turn.
Option 1: Current income is neutral on the propensity to commit crime as changes in income would scale both expected utility and current utility by the same amount.
- In Becker’s framework, individuals compare the expected utility of committing a crime to not committing. Income affects both the potential gains from crime (through the payoff or utility of wealth) and the utility of remaining wealth, but it does not necessarily leave the propensity unchanged. Wealth effects can alter the marginal utility of money and can influence the perceived benefit or cost of crime, especially through changes in opportunity costs and risk aversion. Therefore, treating current income as completely neutral to the crime decision is an oversimplification and can be misleading. This makes the statement questionable, but we need to check the other options for a clearer falsehood.
Option 2: The payoff of the crime is not strategic to anyone as it is fixed once a specific crime is chosen.
- This is mismatched with Becker’s model. The payoff from committing a crime is indeed strategic: it depends on the probability of getting caught, the size of the fine, the opportunity cost, and the potential criminal’s wealth. The criminogenic decision is dynamic because individuals anticipate how government enforcement and penalties alter expected payoffs. Saying the payoff is fixed and not strategic ignores how enforcement and penalties shape incentives. This characterization contradicts the core idea of a strategic decision under uncertainty, making this option a strong candidate for the false statement.
Option 3: The size of the fine is set with government’s objective of only deterring the crime, regardless of government revenue targets.
- In Becker’s model, policy instruments such as fines are chosen to influence expected costs of crime and deter this behavior. While thegovernment may aim to deter, policy design can also consider revenue considerations and other budgetary targets. The statement asserts the fine is set solely for deterrence, ignoring revenue targets, which is an oversimplification. Depending on context, fines can have revenue implications, so claiming they are set only for deterrence is not universally accurate. The statement is arguable but not as directly false as option 2.
Option 4: The probability of getting caught is influenced by the actions of both government and criminals.
- This aligns with Becker’s framework: enforcement intensity by the government (police presence, surveillance) affects catch probability, and criminals’ adaptive behaviors (caution, avoidance, risk-taking) can influence the effective probability as well. This statement is consistent with the model’s emphasis on strategic interaction between enforcement and criminal activity.

Putting it together, the clearest false statement is Option 2, which claims the crime payoff is not strategic and fixed. In Becker’s standard model, payoffs are inherently strategic because enforcement, penalties, and wealth interact to shape expected utility, and criminals anticipate these factors when deciding whether to offend.

Note: Some nuance exists around Option 1 regarding wealth effects, but its claim of complete neutrality (no impact on propensity) is not aligned with the typical interpretation of income effects in a crime-utility framework. The strongest, explicit falsehood remains Option 2, given Becker’s emphasis on strategic consideration of payoffs in response to enforcement and penalties.

Within Becker’s standard model of crime, which of the following statements is false regarding the variables of interest?单项选择题

类似问题

Focusing on deterrence under the Becker model of crime, which of the following statements is false?

What was the world's first widely adopted biodiversity policy?

The aim of the Paris Agreement is to ensure that the earth’s preindustrial temperature is not exceeded by more than º Celsius.

The IPCC's mission is to Blank ______.

Why have most international agreements for environmental protection been based on the honor system?

As was exhibited with the Montreal Protocol and the encouragement of reduced CFC production, trade can be an effective tool to compel compliance with international treaties.

The Stockholm Declaration and UNEP were the result of the Blank ______ first conference on the Human Environment in 1972.

In addition to the direct mission of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), why was CITES so important?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单