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.

SP25 G202 Kreft & Mafi-Kreft Self-Test Quiz 4

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

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

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

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler