In the last few decades, rational choice theory has emerged as a bedrock theory in the fields of economics, sociology, psychology, and political science. Although rational choice theory has been available to criminologists for many years now, the field has not embraced it as other disciplines have. Moreover, rational choice scholars have fueled this skepticism of the theory's generality by modeling offender decision making that is one-sided-large on the costs of crime (sanction threats), short on the benefits of crime. In this article, we directly assess the generality of rational choice theory by examining a fully specified model in a population that is often presumed to be less rationaladolescents from lower socioeconomic families who commit both instrumental (property) and expressive crimes (violence/drugs). By using a panel of N = 1,354 individuals, we find that offending behavior is consistent with rational responses to changes in the perceived costs and benefits of crime even after eliminating fixed unobserved heterogeneity and other time-varying confounders, and these results are robust across different subgroups. The findings support our argument that rational choice theory is a general theory of crime.Rational choice theory (RCT) has made important contributions to the social sciences and has become a prominent theoretical model within sociology, economics, psychology, and political science. Although there has been and continues to be considerable interest in RCT within criminology, many criminologists harbor great skepticism about it, particularly its rationalist assumption and its ability to offer a general theory of crime (DeHaan and Vos, 2003;O'Grady, 2014;Pratt et al., 2006). A repeated criticism against RCT with respect to its generality has been that a theory that emphasizes the rational weighing of the costs and benefits of actions may be perfectly applicable to financial market decisions but not to criminal behavior, and even if applicable to crime, the theory is limited to explaining instrumental kinds of criminal acts such as property crimes and simply is not relevant for actions that are laden with strong affect such as violent crimes. Another

Fifty patients operated upon for cecal volvulus were analyzed. The ages ranged from 14 to 88 years and averaged 53 years. Eighteen were males and 32 were females. The presentation was acute, requiring urgent surgery in 41 patients; nine patients presented with chronic symptoms and were operated upon electively. In 14 patients (28%) the cecal volvulus was temporally related to another acute medical problem. The diagnosis was made radiographically in 22 patients (44%) and at operation in 28 patients (56%). Cecal volvulus was correctly diagnosed by barium enema in 20 of the 29 patients (69%) undergoing the study. Eighteen of the patients were treated by cecopexy, 14 by resection, 12 by detorsion alone, and six by tube cecostomy. Mortality was 12% (6/50) and was associated with gangrenous cecum (33%, 3/9), other systemic diseases (24%, 5/21), age over 50 years (19%, 6/31), and acute presentation (15%, 6/41). In the absence of gangrenous cecum, enterotomy was associated with subsequent wound infection in 23% (7/30), as compared to none (0/11) when enterotomy was not performed. There were no recurrences of cecal volvulus in the entire series during follow-up which extended to 17 years, averaged 5.7 years, and was complete in 96% (42/44) of survivors. When gangrenous cecum is present, resection is the treatment of choice. In the absence of gangrenous bowel, cecopexy is recommended because of a low mortality (0/18), low morbidity (3/18), low recurrence rate (0/18) and absence of need to open the unprepped bowel.

Objectives: Growing evidence indicates that criminologists should incorporate emotional states, such as fear, into standard deterrence frameworks. Within the fear of crime literature, there is empirical support for the “sensitivity to risk” model, which posits perceived victimization control and severity drive certainty perceptions, and these cognitions, in turn, drive fear of crime. We apply this logic to offender decision-making. Methods: Using a sample of young adults ( N = 829), an anonymous online survey, and path analysis, this study investigates an expanded model of deterrence. Results: Perceived control over apprehension directly reduced perceptions of the certainty of being apprehended. Perceived severity was both directly and indirectly, through perceived certainty, associated with greater fear of apprehension. Fear of apprehension is negatively associated with reported criminal propensity, and the effects of cognitive judgments of control, severity, and certainty have an indirect effect on reported criminal propensity via fear of apprehension. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the need to better understand the psychological and emotional aspects of deterrence. Individuals do not simply consult their preformed certainty perceptions when considering crime. Identifying all of the relevant cognitions and the emotions is critical for advancing criminological theories and improving crime policies.

Objectives Propensity score methods rely on an untestable assumption of unconfoundedness for making causal inference. Yet, empirical applications using propensity scores in criminology routinely invoke this assumption without careful scrutiny. Methods We use a dataset with a wide range of observable, potential confounders, which allows us to evaluate recidivism outcomes for adolescent offenders who are sentenced to either placement or probation. We then systematically withhold important known confounders from the matching process to demonstrate the effectiveness of sensitivity checks in sizing up the robustness of these treatment effect estimates in the case where hidden biases clearly exist. Results We find important variability in the estimated treatment effect, and a large degree of imbalance in 'unobserved' covariates, which we did not explicitly control for. The hidden biases observed in our controlled analysis would have at least been suggested in an actual application by the low gamma statistics that attended our analysis, a statistic that is not reported in most criminological applications of propensity score analysis. Conclusions Researchers who use propensity score methods should openly discuss potential limitations of their analysis due to hidden bias and report bias sensitivity checks based on the gamma statistic when statistically significant treatment effects are reported.