In Hamlet (William Shakespeare, c. 1600), the ghost of the late king of Denmark appears to his son and tells him how he died. He was not bitten by a snake while sleeping in his orchard, as everyone was told: his brother Claudius poured poison into his ear. Claudius has since been crowned king and has married the widow, Queen Gertrude. Hamlet stages a play that reproduces the murder to watch the king’s reaction, and Claudius leaves the room shaken. Shortly afterwards, alone, he tries to pray. “O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven”, he begins, and he admits that he cannot ask for forgiveness while keeping the fruits of his crime: the crown, his ambition and the queen. He gets up without having prayed. From then on he plots Hamlet’s death, first by sending him to England with a letter ordering his execution and then with a poisoned sword and a poisoned cup. The cup kills Gertrude; the sword kills Hamlet, who kills Claudius before he dies.
// The theoryGuilt also has a price
Classical rational choice theory pictured the offender weighing the benefits of a crime against the risk of being caught and punished. In the 1990s Raymond Paternoster and Sally Simpson, studying corporate crime, showed that this model left out something essential. When they asked managers whether they would commit an illegal act, the threat of sanctions mattered less than moral considerations: whether the act was wrong, whether they would feel ashamed, whether it fitted their image of themselves. For most people, those moral costs are enough to rule out the crime before any calculation of punishment. The model does not abandon rational choice; it broadens it. Guilt is one more cost, and often the heaviest.
A conscience that cannot pay
Claudius is not a man without conscience: his guilt is real, and he describes it with great precision. He knows that his crime is “the primal eldest curse”, a brother’s murder; he knows that forgiveness exists; and he knows exactly why he cannot reach it. Repentance would require giving up what he gained, and he will not. “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below”. In the language of the moral cost-benefit model, his guilt is a real cost, but the benefits—the throne, the queen, his ambition—weigh more. The theory predicts that most people would not have killed. It also explains why Claudius, once he has, cannot undo it: the moral cost is paid every day, but the gain is kept.
// The subjectA competent king and a murderer
What makes Claudius interesting is that he is a good ruler. He manages a diplomatic crisis with Norway, speaks well, handles the court skillfully and seems to love Gertrude. He is not a tyrant who enjoys cruelty. His crime is a single act, carefully planned, that gave him everything he wanted. That fits what Paternoster and Simpson found in corporations: the people who commit serious crimes for profit are often competent, socially integrated and convinced that they are decent. Their problem is not a lack of moral sense, but the moment in which the benefit is great enough to override it. Claudius chose that moment once, and spends the rest of the play protecting its consequences, which leads him to plan new murders.
Claudius
Get the map of theories for free
Subscribe to the criminal archive —one case a week, no spam— and I'll send you The map of theories: the great currents of criminology on a single sheet.
// The crackA calculation that keeps changing
The model has a limit that the play shows clearly: it describes the decision as a single moment, and crime has a before and an after. Before the murder, Claudius’s moral cost was not high enough to stop him. After it, guilt grows, but so does what he has to lose: if the truth comes out, he loses the throne, the queen and his life. The calculation changes, and each new crime—against Hamlet—is decided under different conditions. The theory also has trouble explaining how moral costs are formed. Why did guilt weigh so little on the night of the poisoning and so much on the night of the prayer? Shakespeare suggests an answer: the play within the play forces him to see his crime from the outside.
Finally, the model is optimistic about the majority, and rightly so: most people are held back by their conscience. But it says little about how to strengthen that conscience in someone for whom it was not enough. Claudius knows exactly what he should do and does not do it. Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as being willing to pay the price of putting it right.
Prevention through morality, not only fear
Paternoster and Simpson’s finding has practical consequences: if moral costs deter more than sanctions, prevention should also work on them. In organizations, that means making clear which behaviors are unacceptable and why, avoiding environments where crime is presented as normal and protecting those who report it. Restorative justice, for its part, works on the step Claudius could not take: assuming responsibility and repairing the harm, which usually means giving something back. His prayer is the portrait of a person who wants forgiveness without restitution, and the theory explains why that is impossible.
Three key ideas
- The moral cost-benefit model (Paternoster and Simpson) broadens rational choice: guilt, shame and self-image are weighed too, and for most people they are enough to rule out crime.
- Claudius poisons his brother, keeps the crown and the queen and, in the prayer scene, understands that he cannot be forgiven while he keeps what he gained: “May one be pardon’d and retain the offence?”.
- The crack: the model describes a single decision, but the calculation changes after the crime, and it explains little of why guilt weighed so little before and so much afterwards.
Sources · further reading
- Paternoster, R. and Simpson, S. (1996). “Sanction Threats and Appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational Choice Model of Corporate Crime”. Law & Society Review, 30(3), 549-583.
- Paternoster, R. and Simpson, S. (1993). “A Rational Choice Theory of Corporate Crime”. In R. V. Clarke and M. Felson (eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice (pp. 37-58). Transaction.
- Grasmick, H. G. and Bursik, R. J. (1990). “Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice”. Law & Society Review, 24(3), 837-861.
- Shakespeare, W. (c. 1600). Hamlet. First published in quarto (1603).
Case-file questionsFrequently asked questions
Who is Claudio?
Claudio (“Rey de Dinamarca”) is a villain from Shakespeare, analysed on KRIMINIS through the lens of criminology. He knelt to pray and the words would not come.
Why does Claudius (King of Denmark) become a villain?
Claudius and moral cost-benefit: the brother who poisoned the king of Denmark prays, feels the guilt and still cannot repent, because repenting would force him to give up what he gained. Three decades ago rational choice criminology discovered that guilt enters the calculation. Shakespeare wrote the case in which it loses.
Which criminological theory explains Claudio?
Claudio's case is analysed through Moral cost-benefit. The moral cost-benefit model broadens rational choice: besides money and the risk of punishment, people deciding whether to offend weigh moral costs such as guilt, shame or their image of themselves. Raymond Paternoster and Sally Simpson showed that for most people that cost is enough to keep them from offending. Claudius, the king in Hamlet (c. 1600), killed his brother by pouring poison into his ear as he slept and kept his crown and his widow. In the prayer scene he feels the guilt in full, but understands that he cannot truly repent while he holds on to what the crime gave him. His moral calculation exists; it simply weighs less than the crown.
