Deviance Theory In Criminology

Deviance is a term used to describe behavior that goes against the established social and cultural norms. The concept of deviance is complex because norms vary significantly across different times, places, and groups (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Essentially, individuals commit deviant behavior when society defines it as such. In modern society, deviance is considered to be a socially dangerous act, prohibited by law under the threat of punishment (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some people engage in deviant behavior, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to a cost-benefit analysis; they believe that an individual commits crime after weighing

Each theory has its own basis to explain why individuals commit crimes but regardless of the theory used, the end goal of criminology is to develop ways to control crime or rehabilitate the criminal (Barlow & Decker, 2010). To this effect, this paper will analyze aspects of a real-world scenario, using both Rational Choice theory and Cognitive (IQ) deficits theory, for the purpose of further understanding and evaluating certain deviant behavior.
There are many theories that attempt to explain the cause of an individual’s criminal behavior. One such theory is rational choice theory as proposed by Cornish and Clarke (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). The first mentions of rational choice theory can be traced back to the classical tradition developed by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in the eighteenth century. They believed that “man is a calculating animal” and has free will in making decisions (Browning et al., 2000, p.153). Since then, the theory has been expanded upon and extended to cover a wide range of crimes. Cornish and Clarke have elaborated their own approach into a rational choice perspective, in which they set out several key assumptions (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). These assumptions include

There may not be a single psychological or biological theory that can completely explain their behavior. For example, rational choice theory can explain the motivation behind Tim and Lionel’s choice to share the nude photos as they believed it to be more rewarding to do so. However, this theory assumes every individual is a rational being and makes rational choices, but it is clearly evident that Tim and Lionel are limited in their ability to conduct analysis and think of alternatives (Browning et al., 2000). In opposition to rational choice theory, cognitive deficit theory argues that individuals lack free will and this can explain how Tim and Lionel were ‘forced’ by their biological constraints to make the decision they did. Yet this approach assumes that an individual has a pre-determined future which cannot be changed. However, if Tim and Lionel received proper social support and were able to adjust in society, then perhaps they would not have been ‘forced’ to make the same decision. Despite the faults in each individual theory, if we examine the main aspects of the theories, then it is possible to develop a more inclusive theory to explain deviant acts more effectively (Barlow & Decker, 2010). For example, if we can account for the weaknesses of rational choice theory by explaining it through the