There are three main points that are reinforced in rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke, 1986). First, it may work better or worse for different types of crime, yet it is thought that there are rational choices in every type of crime even impulsive and pathologic crimes. Second, the theory should be applied on a crime-specific basis. Hence, burglaries can’t be grouped together in among residential and commercial categories. Rather, they must be broken into smaller facets such as public housing burglaries or wealthy residential neighborhoods. Finally, a distinction is made between criminal involvement and criminal events. Criminal involvement describes how individuals get involved in crime and further continue or abstain from this lifestyle. Criminal events have unique underpinnings, which are often shorter processes than criminal involvement structures.
Among the goals of rational choice theory is to explain all types of crime (Cornish and Clarke, 1986). However, it does not propose that there is an underlying unity between different types of crime like other theories. Instead, these diverse elements are important in explaining why such events occur. Also, it incorporates factors that lead to crime, emphasizes the pattern of decisions throughout a criminal career, and accounts for situational variables of crime.
In comparison, the deterrence theory proposes that the fear of legal punishment diverts people away from crime, while rational choice theory advances that in the act of choosing whether or not to commit a crime the benefits are weighed (Stafford and Warr, 1993; Cornish and Clarke, 1986). Hence, in both theories pain is a cause for not committing crimes. Furthermore, the deterrence theory has two chil...
... middle of paper ...
...um, these three points show that development is a constant interaction between the self and the environment coupled with chance or luck. Recognizing that luck plays a role, or more appropriately called “random development noise”, is important to show the significance of the randomness of the process.
Thornberry (1987) acknowledges the weight of the social control theory, social learning theory, and integrated models that combine the two. However, there are three limitations. First, causal structures are unidirectional instead of reciprocal. One example, social psychological research points to the reciprocal relationship between delinquent values and behaviors. Second, these theories use models that are usually non-developmental in nature – only focusing on one age range. Lastly, they surmise causal effects in a social structure to be similar throughout.
Debra’s crime is a perfect example of the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory is best defined as when an individual rationally decides to commit a crime. The individual’s decision to commit a crime or not is based on the potential gains and potential losses. Debra embezzled nearly 2 million dollars so she most likely decided to commit the crime based on potential gains. In addition, Debra must have known that her chances of getting caught would be slim. Since she was smart enough to commit such a crime, she most likely funnelled the money to an offshore
Kody Scott, later known as Shanyika Shakur, was born in Los Angeles in 1963. Before last imprisonment he committed various crimes, such as, robbery, assault, and murder. Kody’s childhood was pretty rough. He grew up as the fifth of six children in a broken home. His mother, Birdy Scott, worked odd jobs and long hours to support her children. While his father, Ernest Scott, left the family in 1970 and was completely out of Kody’s life by 1975. Shortly after completing sixth grade at Horace Mann, Kody joined a subgroup of the infamous L.A. Crips on June 15th, 1975. Kody committed his first murder on the night of his initiation. This would be the start of Kody’s descent into becoming “Monster Kody”. It was two years after his initiation that Kody first donned the name Monster. Scott had beaten a robbery victim so bad that the police said it was “The work of a
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
Crimes are deliberate acts, with the intent of benefiting the offender. 2. Benefiting unsuccessfully in choosing the best decisions because of the risks and uncertainty involved. 3. Decision making significantly varies with the nature of the crime. 4. Involvement decisions are quite different from the commission (event decision) of a specific act. 5. Involvement decisions are divided into three stages: first time involvement (initiation), continued involvement (habituation) and ceasing to offend (desistance), 6. Event decisions include a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act, involvement model, background factors and situational life styles, initiation (of becoming involved in a crime), habituation (deciding to continue with crime), distance (deciding to stop criminal behavior) and event model – criminal even
When criminals think that the benefit of committing the crime will outweigh the cost if they get caught, they make a choice to commit the crime. There are two varieties of rational choice theory. One, situational choice theory, which is an extension of rational choice theory and two, routine activities theory or RAT, which states that the daily routine or patterns in ones’ activities make it much easier for an individual to become a victim of crime. The theory is, crime is more likely to happen when a criminal and their victim come together in the absence of authority (Schmalleger). A situation made easier to come by when the criminal knows the victim’s daily routines or patterns.
The nature and damage of white-collar crime can result in a variety of punishments for the offender. Some sanctions being time in prison, some being fines, and others being a combination of both. For example, Chalana McFarland who was a real estate attorney and was accused of fraud, money laundering and other crimes costing investors $20 million. She was charged with $12 million in restitution and thirty years in prison (Haury, 2012). Another example would be Bernie Madoff, who owned Madoff Securities, was involved in a Ponzi scheme. It is believed that investors lost $50 billion dollars. Curently Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence in a prison in Butner, N.C (Haury, 2012). As these white-collar crime cases show, the costs of these crimes can be quite serve and earn life sentences as well as very hefty fines. Moreover, white-collar crimes have huge economic effects on victims, often causing life altering losses. Under consideration white-collar crimes are quite high-cost actions that hold large possible punishments and large ethical issues. In a research experiment done by Christian Seipel and Stefanie Eifler, a theory branching from rational choice theory was tested in relation to crime. The theory they explored was referred to as high- and low- cost theory. This theory discusses the factors that influence low cost crime and high cost crime. Low cost being defined as crimes that have low
Crime causation is looking at why people commit crimes. There are many theories that have been developed to explain this. The theories can be grouped into eight general categories of which one is the Classical theory (Schmallegar, 2011, p. 79). A subset of this theory, rational choice theory, will be specifically looked at to explain the crime of burglary. Just as no one causation theory explains all crimes committed, the rational choice theory itself does not completely explain why all burglars commit their crimes. Therefore, the pros and cons of the rational choice theory will be discussed in relation to the crime topic of burglary.
Did you know that in 2014, shoplifting and worker’s theft cost the retail industry a loss of thirty-two billion dollars (Wahba, 2015)? According Wahba “a common misperception about shoplifting is that retailers can ‘afford’ the loss of a candy bar or a pair of jeans” (2015). This type of reasoning certainly does make more sense when explained through the context of a criminological theory. For example according to the Rational Choice theory individuals weigh the costs and benefits associated with a criminal and or deviant act and then make a conscious choice. Other criminological theories explain criminal and deviant behavior using a biological, psychological, social, conflict, or multifactor component. Taking that into consideration in this
The study of criminology involves many different theories in which people attempt to explain reasoning behind criminal behavior. Although there are many different theories the focus of this paper is the comparison and contrasting sides of The Differential Association Theory (DAT) of Edwin Sutherland and the Neoclassicism Rational Choice Theory. The Differential Theory falls under Social Process Theories which focuses on sociological perspective of crime. The Rational Choice Theory falls under Neoclassicism which believes that criminal behavior is ultimately a choice.
Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational Choice theory, criminal control policy, and criminology relevance. Policy essay, 43-52.
The rational choice theory comes from the classical theory which is based off of personal choice towards criminal behavior. Criminal behavior under the rational choice theory has been due to the free thinking of society and has always been because of a specific thought process of personal vendettas. For example, a jealous person may feel the need to do something physically illegal like punching another person in the face because the benefit of gratitude is worth the risk of consequence. The example above is part of the rational choice theory and the reason is because that particular person weighed the costs and benefits of their illegal action. Rational choice theory is a vision where crime is a functionality of the decision-making process of the criminal in which they weigh the costs and benefits of an illegal act in society (Siegel, 2011).
According to one of rational choice theory’s prominent and more thoughtful contemporary exponents, Peter C. Ordeshook, “four books mark the beginning of modern political theory: Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Duncan Black’s Theory of Committees and Elections (1958), William H. Riker’s A Theory of Political Coalitions (1962), and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent (1962). These volumes, along with Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), began such a wealth of research that political scientists today have difficulty digesting and synthesizing all but small parts of it. Consequently, the full value of this research often goes unrealized…” (Ordeshook 1986, ix)
Crime exists everywhere. It is exists in our country, in the big cities, the small towns, schools, and even in homes. Crime is defined as “any action that is a violation of law”. These violations may be pending, but in order to at least lower the crime rate, an understanding of why the crimes are committed must first be sought. There are many theories that are able to explain crimes, but three very important ones are rational choice theory, social disorganization theory and strain theory.
In this case study, Laura and Danny have had significant changes in their lives. Laura has now left with the children and planning on moving with them to El Paso, Texas in a month. She has also filed for divorce from Danny. While Laura is making positive improvements to her life she is still concerned for Danny. She goes to collect what’s left of her belongings when she finds Danny in a state of panic. Danny has let himself go at this point. He started consuming alcohol, has not found a job, and is living with no electricity. Kid decides to pay Danny and Laura a visit and he quickly realizes Danny is in trouble. Danny begs for Kid’s assistance in order to help him start a new life. Danny is worried that he will end up alone and homeless
Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).