Using Rational Choice Theory to Interpret Aggregate Data on Infanticide
When assessing a large body of work on a single type of crime, the theoretical lens through which the work is examined can have profound effects on the conclusions reached and their implications for policy development. The article “Infanticide and Neonaticide: A Review of 40 Years of Research Literature on Incidence and Causes” by Theresa Porter and Helen Gavin (2010) assesses a broad range of research on infanticide in order to gain a deeper, objective understanding of the offenders and circumstances under which they commit the crimes. Starting with a summary of the journal article, I will analyze Gavin & Porter’s (2010) aggregate study on infanticide through the lens of rational choice theory, and will discuss the policy implications and the preventative measures that may be taken to reduce the occurrence of this type of crime.
Summary of Gavin & Porter’s (2010) Research
Gavin & Porter’s (2010) study aims to gain a clearer understanding of how cases of infanticide and neonaticide differ from each other; to do this, the authors conduct an aggregate study. An aggregate study is a collection of studies on a single topic, used by researchers to comprehensively assess the known empirical data and provide a complete summary of a phenomenon. Gavin & Porter (2010) compile data and findings from over 100 studies spanning 40 years in order to create a more complete picture of infanticide, the women who commit the crimes, and their motives. The authors also assess many of the commonly accepted theories on infanticide, detailing the shortcomings of these arguments in light of newer research on the topic.
The authors begin their study by stating the distinctions that differentiate each type of case, explaining that “infanticide is the killing of young children, whereas neonaticide is the killing of the infant within the first 24 hours after birth” (Gavin & Porter, 2010, p. 99). While neonaticide is typically committed by emotionally immature women who are younger than 25 years old, do not suffer from mental illness, who often conceal the pregnancy and do not give birth in a hospital, infanticide tends to be committed by mature women for a range of reasons (referred to as “typologies” by Gavin & Porter): killing for “altruistic” reasons, killing as a result of mental illness or psychosis, retaliation against another adult, accidents of child abuse or neglect, and removal of an unwanted child (Resnick, 1970). While infanticide is more likely than neonaticide to be committed during psychotic episodes, “[these] symptoms of mental illness are not unique forms caused by hormonal changes but rather are manifestations of preexisting mental illnesses” (Gavin & Porter, 2010, p. 103). The authors also refer to Stanton and Simpson (2006), who suggest that infanticidal women who experience mental illness often underestimate their own risk of relapse in the future. In their conclusion, the authors state that these findings on infanticide and neonaticide should encourage open conversations about mental health and increase public concern and education on how to prevent these crimes.
Applying Rational Choice Theory to Infanticide
The concept of rational choice theory came to mind as I searched for a way to understand the range of motives behind infanticide and neonaticide. Rational choice theory views crimes as “purposive and deliberate acts, committed with the intention of benefitting the offender. The benefits of offending include…autonomy, admiration, revenge, control, reduction of tension, material goods and so on” (Clarke & Cornish, 2017, p. 32-33). This theory suggests that, since humans are rational beings, their behaviors and actions are also rational and aim to maximize utility; therefore, crime can be prevented if the benefits of crime are reduced, costs are increased, or opportunities are limited (Clarke & Cornish, 2017).
I chose this theory to apply to cases of infanticide, since the aggregate findings reveal that in the majority of cases, women are in full control of their own decisions and actions, rather than the murders being a result of psychosis. Therefore, the women compare the costs and benefits of committing infanticide to avoid motherhood before ultimately making the decision that will achieve the greatest amount of utility; her choice to kill is calculated, informed, and rational. Gavin & Porter (2010) also reference a study by Beyer, Mcauliffe-Mack, and Shelton (2008), which reports that “all of the 40 infanticidal women in [the] sample had personal gain for their actions, that is, living their lives unencumbered by an infant” (Gavin & Porter, 2010, p. 101).
Many of Gavin & Porter’s (2010) findings do provide empirical support for rational choice theory; however, in its application to a crime with a vast array of typologies and subsets, there are limitations to how far rational choice theory can reach. For example, the authors explain that infanticide is typically committed by emotionally immature women (Gavin & Porter, 2010). A woman who lacks emotional maturity may be incapable of making rational decisions and fully understanding the consequences of the crime. Therefore, if rational choice theory assumes humans are rational beings who understand the consequences of their actions, this theory cannot explain how emotionally immature women ultimately decide to kill their children, especially since neonaticide typically does not involve mental illness or psychosis.
Policy Implications of Rational Choice Theory
Since rational choice theory emphasizes the process of comparing costs and benefits before committing a crime, the policies on prevention and punishment for infanticide cases should also reflect the necessity of reducing the benefits of committing the crimes and decreasing the opportunity for crime through increased awareness and education on the topic. Actions that may be taken to make the crime less appealing include increasing access to mental health resources, creating support facilities and resources for young, single mothers, pushing for comprehensive sex education that discusses unwanted pregnancies and available resources for young mothers, and increasing awareness on the subject through social media, education, and specialized training, so high-risk populations and those around them can identify situations where infanticide may occur before it happens (Hatters-Friedman & Resnick, 2007). Additionally, as the authors stress in their conclusion, it is important for the criminal justice system to address the sentencing disparities between men and women, since women often receive significantly milder sentences than men who commit the same crimes, further perpetuating the myth that, due to their biology, women can only be nurturers and not killers (Gavin & Porter, 2010).
Although rational choice theory explains much of Gavin & Porter’s (2010) findings on the decision-making process behind infanticide, the theory cannot be fully generalized to our understanding of neonaticide. That being said, examining the issue through the lens of rational choice theory can help to develop better policies that rehabilitate offenders and educate medical professionals and the general public on preventative strategies.