Are thieves homines oeconomici?

Maybe this is due to the end of my finance exams last week, but at the moment there seem to be much more exciting things to tell than finance. One of those things is the book I currently read: "Utopia" by Thomas Morus. Although a classic, the book is still not too present in the mind of the typical 21st century citizen. (I must admit, I would not have had the idea of reading Utopia either if Peter Gross would not have mentioned and recommended it to us :-)). The first 50 pages have reveiled a story I thought worth commenting on:

In Antwerp Thomas Morus talks with his friend Petrus Aegidius and a man called Raphael Hythlodaeus, a sailor and scholar at the same time. Raphael tells them about a talk he had in Great Britain about fair punishment for thieves. His opponent praises the then common practice: hanging people for stealing something. Raphael makes his opponent think by the following argument: When a thief knows that he is going to be killed for stealing, he is likely to kill his victim, because this reduces the chance of being accused and hanged. If he only expected a milder punishment, he would probably be satisfied with the stolen goods and let his victim go.

I have never thought of this before, but I think Raphael's argument is very clear and straightforward: When criminals know that the punishment for killing someone is the same or nearly the same as for a less severe crime, they are likely to commit the worse crime just to reduce the risk of being brought to justice by their victim. I cannot help, but this sounds just like the reknown homo oeconomicus, whom we have admired since the first economics lecture, doesn't it?

I am sure there are more interesting things to come in "Utopia". I will let you know...