Criminological Theory
Rational Choice
Rational choice is based on the presumption that crime is a personal choice and that people can freely choose to participate in such criminal activity based on the outcomes, whether it be negative or positive. A person may choose to engage in a crime because it may seem rewarding and pleasurable. On the other hand, a person may decide to avoid participating in criminal activity from their fear of being punished. If the risk of getting caught is too high, one may decide not to commit the crime. In short, a person will take careful consideration to the cost and benefits before deciding to commit a crime.
I believe that rational choice has high validity to it. In almost all decisions someone makes, they usually weigh the consequences of their actions. There are very few people in today's society who will not sit there and weigh the risk of their actions before doing anything. If the risk is too high, more often than not a person is not going to go on a commit the crime and worry about the consequences later. However, some people tend to act out on impulse and do not tend to think of the consequences of their actions so rational choice may not apply to all.
Labeling Theory
The labeling theory states that the behaviors and identities of individuals can be influenced by the name, or label, that society gives them. An example of this is a teenager, who lives in an area that is populated with gangs, may be identified as one of the gang members. Eventually he or she, will start to act like a gang member or even become a member.
In my opinion, labeling theory is comparable to stereotypical references in that more often than not stereotypes prove to be true or accurate. For example, labeli...
... middle of paper ...
...ed during an illegal search and the court denied his motion to suppress. However, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction stating that the officer 's search, even though he lacked the probable cause to arrest Terry at time of the search, satisfied the conditions outlined in the Fourth Amendment.
From Terry v. Ohio, a stop and search from an officer was from there on out called a "stop and frisk". This case is also one of the many landmark cases that we should know details of. From my criminal procedure and criminal investigation classes, I learned that the main purpose of the "stop and frisk" is officer safety. I believe that it is a good measure when stopping someone and suspecting they have a weapon on their person. An officer should have the right to pat them down if they fear for their safety or believe the person is carrying a concealed weapon.
According to the text, Rational Choice Theory is comprised of two main thoughts, and they are, although people consider and are fully aware of the repercussion of the crimes they are about to commit, they proceed with the act, the second thought is that people will chose to commit a crime if they believe the benefit is greater. (Vito, 2007). In an article titled “Choosing White Color Crimes”, the rational choice theory has always been the acceptable method of interpreting and sustaining programs that help to combat crime (Shover, n.d.). Criminologists, Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark, clarify the two categories of the decision making process, the first one being criminal involvement, and the second one being criminal event.
First, studies have to show how the officers apply the procedure of stop-and-frisk second, it should describe how the Fourth Amendment ties with how the police officer performs it. As further research has passed, the authors have seen some articles of steps on how stop-and-frisk being done. “Officers should conduct stops only when they are justified.” By this standard, officers should be required to file a report explaining the reason and context surrounding the stop, along with the ultimate outcome (arrest, weapons or drug confiscation, etc.). Police leaders, commanders, and managers should communicate a clear, uniform message about the purpose of the practice and lay out the expectations for police conduct. Officers should be trained to conduct stops legally and respectfully. In essence, they need to “sell the stop” to citizens by explaining the purpose behind it, how it links to the agency’s crime control efforts, and why it benefits the
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
The novel, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson is an incredible read. In this book, Mr.
Labeling theory of deviance suggests that when one is labeled constantly on the basis of any minority it gives rise to deviant behavior in order to prove the strength of the minority. The minority has been labeled so by people for a long time. They have been labeled because of their race. The gang is labeled anti-social because of their criminal behavior which turns them further to deviance. The use of the labeling theory can be seen being implemented very judiciously
Rational choice theorist says that social emotions such as guilt, shame, and anxiety are feelings or thoughts that prevent us from doing things and giving in to our temptations. These social cues helps us to place boundaries on what is right and what is wrong and what the outcome of negative delinquent behaviors may be. Not everyone has the same idea of what behavior is rational versus
The act of search and seizure is derived from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is focused on privacy. Its sole purpose is to protect against unreasonable search and seizures performed by State and/or Federal authorities. Most search and seizures are performed by law enforcement officials. There are certain circumstances in which search and seizures are considered reasonable. They can include but not limited to, owner consent, an issued warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion and reasonable expectation of privacy. With any of these circumstances an officer has the right to conduct a search of the suspect. A search and seizure is only to be considered unlawful when an individual’s personal property i.e., their house or car is searched or breached without owner consent. Consent is the permission granted for a search to given in one’s personal property. Otherwise, a warrant must be issued for the conducted search in order for evidence to be admitted lawfully. If...
Look around and you’re guarenteed to see some type of crime. Whether it’s as simple as someone speeding or as severe as a shooting its happeneing and its nonstop. However the question that might never be solved is why does it happen and what drives people to do what we have been told our whole lives is wrong. During this semster we have learned the different types of theories as to why crime occurs. Growing up I always felt strongly that people chose to do bad and too this day I stand by this belief. Because of this I see no other theory to write about than the Rational Choice Theory. The idea of rational choice theory is that before the crime takes place the criminal thinks through what they 're going to do and that they are fully aware they 're committing the crime. And more than just thinking about doing the crime theres also a mix of emotions
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently being implemented by the New York Police Department. It grants police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them questions and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fall under assault and are irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identifying himself as a police officer, and making reasonable inquiries.
The stop and frisk policy is a policy in which law enforcement officers stop and asks questions and frisk people they feel are suspect, and I feel that it is wrong because it targets too many innocent people and takes the focus off real criminals. They do this even if the person has done nothing wrong....
The Labeling Theory is the view that labels people are given affect their own and others’ perception of them, thus channeling their behavior either into deviance or into conformity. Labels can be positive and/or negative, but I’ll focus on the negative aspects of labeling in high school. Everybody has a label in high school whether it is the “slut”, “pothead”, “freak” or the “jock”; it is one of the most apparent time periods in which individuals get labeled. Students have the mentality that whatever label is placed on them is going to be stuck with them forever, which then leads into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This, I feel, is a fear of being a “loser” that has been instilled throughout years by the principals, teachers, etc. An example of this is the pressure students are given to get a good grade. In order to get into an honors class they need to pass a certain test, should they not get into honors class the following year, then all throughout the rest of their remaining school life, they’ll never be able to be in honors class. They’ll then no longer be seen as the “smart” students they were “before”(even though they still are), they’ll now be labeled as “dumb” and eventually start to believe, and become their label. Another example of this is being labeled a “slut”. When a girl has been labeled a slut, early or in the middle of her school life, the label sticks with her all throughout her remaining school years. At first, she could reject this label, and try to “change”...
Critical criminology, also known as radical criminology dates back to the concepts of Marxism. Despite the fact that Fredric Engels and Karl Marx were the founders of contemporary radical criminology, none of them gave explicit focus to crime. William Bonger (1876-1940), a Dutch criminologist was a more direct founder of this concept. It gained popularity during the early 1970s when it tried to explain the causes of contemporary social mayhem. He used economic explanations were used by critical criminology to analyze social behavior by arguing that social and economic inequalities were the main reason behind criminal behavior (Henry & Lainer, 1998). This view reduces the focus on individual criminals and elaborates that the existing crime is as a result of the capitalist system. Just like the conflict school of thought, it asserts that law is biased since it favors the ruling or the upper class and that the legal system that governs the state is meant to maintain the status quo of the ruling class. Critical criminologist are of the view that political, corporate and environmental crime are not only underreported but also inadequately punished by the existing criminal legal system.
Rational Choice Theory is “a neoclassical theory asserting that offenders are free actors in their own actions” (Walsh and Hemmens 536). The gist of rational choice theory is a criminal makes the choice to commit the crime; that individuals are rational. They can think in a logical way. Rational choice theory is about people maximizing their advantages and minimizing their losses in different situations ( Root para. 2).
Label theory is based in the idea that behaviors are irregular when the society labels them as irregular. The label theory implies that a person commits a crime in some time of a life, but that person is not seen as deviant, while other people are deviant. Label theory explains how a behavior of a person conflicts with the norms of the society. For example, A black young men, who lives in a neighborhood controlled by gangs may be labeled as a gang member. In consequence, that young man can start to act as gang member or became one. He incorporates the label that was given to him.