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).
Deterrence encourages the individual to calculate the costs of committing the crime. Convicted offender’s merit punishment proportionate with the seriousness of the harm they caused. This punishment is for the specific offense they committed and not for any other reason. If the punishment is too harsh it is counterproductive and results in a lack of respect for the law. If the punishment is too lenient, it will not serve as a deterrent (Henry, S & Lanier, M, 2010).
Leading us to the point that the social control theory focuses on how the absences of close relationships with conventional others can free individuals from social constraints, thus enabling them to engage in delinquency (Kempf-Leonard, 2012). Labeling Theory The labeling theory is based off of the view that people will become criminals when labeled as such and when they accept that label as their personal identity. The labeling theory can be used to explain why a particular behavior is considered to be negatively deviant to some people, groups, and
According to this aspect the act which if treated as a crime reduces the social cost should be treated as a crime. Law... ... middle of paper ... ...n the case of Bacchan Singh, it was given not to restore the interest of the plaintiff but to show what punishment should a person have to for committing a crime with that much level of seriousness. An Economic theory of Criminal Law The economic theory of criminal law provides us with a predictive model of criminal behavior. The first question which comes into our minds what is the need of criminal law in a society is civil law not enough to deal with the crimes. Why Criminal Law?
This is undertaken by solely examining Strain theory and Rational choice theory. Although individual influences in crimes are of importance; they should only be recognized as an aptitude of crime rather then its cause. For that reason, a critique of these issues promotes a change by the academic community away from discussions over their success towards the development of more unifying theory building in the current economic climate. A theoretical perspective that has been used to explain white-collar crime is rational choice theory (Paternoster and Simpson, 1996; Piquero et al., 2005). Its bases its argument on the idea that people consider their decisions prior to undertaking criminal acts, and then act in their self-interest.
Assessing the arguments on crime being, functional inevitable and normal it is very clear that today deviance is very much apart of our society. Durkheim argued that crime could be beneficial, as reported and witnessed crime is often used as a warning device for our society. In moderation, crime can kept under control by the laws and collective conscience. Collective conscience provides a framework with boundaries, which distinguishes between actions that are acceptable and those that are not.
These characteristics are Barkan and Bryjak mentioned in the book that some “kinds” of people to contribute crimes than others. However, we should know that any of these explanations are not absolutely true and they just explain that some of our social characteristics influence chances of committing crimes. Works Cited Barkan, Steven E., and George J. Bryjak. Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice: What Every American Should Know. 2nd ed.
Deterrence leads to the idea of crime being a choice specific to an individual. People who engage in criminal behavior weigh the possible risks of consequences against the possible gain in rewards. What really tips the scale in this gamble of criminal behavior is the certainty and severity of punishment (Kubrin, Stucky, and Krohn 2009). There can be a problem with this idea, are those who commit illegal acts rational thinkers? The theorem for deterrence and rational choice consists of the following: the guarantee of punishment could lower criminal behavior, the severity of consequences will also reduce criminal acts, and swift discipline will avert further criminal behavior from offenders (Kubrin, Stucky, and Krohn 2009).
Hobbs, Beccaria, and Bentham provided the foundation for modern deterrence theory in criminology (Mutchnick, Martin, Austin 2009). Those who support Deterrence Theory are of the opinion that the degree of punishment affects an individual’s choice to obey or violate the law. Beccaria held the belief that the certainty of punishment, even if it is mild in application, would deter individuals from committing crimes more so than the fear of a more severe punishment that is combined with the possibility of impunity. (Mutchnick,et al. 2009).
In the article, the anterior part indicates the supporting reasons of death penalty, the posterior part indicates the cons. Support Reason Deterrence of punishment Becker (1968), first of all, assumes that the crime is bad which incurs social loss, it should be deterred, death penalty is the severest punishment, and potential criminals are normal individuals. Because individuals are rational, the potential criminals also are rational. They commit crime as maximization of utility. The opportunity cost of committing crime is the net utility from legitimate activity.