Supposed someone name Alice enjoys street racing with the thrill of winning big prizes and competing against other street racers in their fancy cars. But Alice also enjoys the danger of this illegal activity. As a street racer, she enjoys trespassing on private properties, carjacking, vandalism, and the possible contact with law enforcement. She understands all these risks can lead to her in jail or be killed, but she doesn’t regret her decision in participating in street racing. This is one of the examples of a rational choice theory. Rational choice theory is one of the criminal theories in criminology that means a person commits a crime because by choice and the benefit the person will receive from committing a criminal act (Winfree, Abadinsky,
proven as an effective theory (Akers 1998, 200; Agnew, 2005). The general theory of crime and delinquency shares some of the strengths of social learning theory except this specific theory focuses on a bigger picture of what causes crime and is showed through what Agnew refers as life domains (Akers 1998, 200; Agnew, 2005). The theory also focuses on risk factors and explains how people go through these risk factors across their lifetime (Agnew, 2005). The weaknesses of this theory is that it lacks empirical testing just like the labeling theory but a strength is that social learning theory, deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and Thornberry’s interactional theory of delinquency have been empirically tested which supports this theory
When comparing rational choice theory to the Andrea Yates story it is evident that rational theory was in fact present throughout the duration of Andrea completing her heinous crime. According to the document provided via Investopedia, the rational theory could be defined as “... an economic principle that states that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions.” Throughout the case and its entirety, Andrea depicted characteristics of being fully rational and aware of her decisions. Several factors played a key part in determining whether or not Andrea Yates was rational at the time of the crime, factors such as; Andrea exclaimed that “she knew through a “feeling” that Satan wanted her to kill her children,” She struggled back and forth in her mind for one to two months about whether to take the lives of her children or herself. According to the rational choice theory document,
There are different types of “white collar crime” that exists inclusive of fraud, embezzlement, insider trading and Ponzi schemes. “White collar crime” affects everyone and the main driving force of the perpetrator of the white collar crime is mainly greed plain and simple. There are different theories associated with “white collar crime”. One of these such theories is the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory indicates that persons have a choice of whether to commit an offence or not. In this case “white collar crime”. Therefore, before committing the crime the offender weighs the pros and cons associated with the crime. The offender who decides to commit “white collar crime” goes about it in the everyday activities in their job. The offender on a daily basis will observe a certain type of “white collar crime” taking place in his workplace and during the daily or routine interaction with his colleague who is carrying on the crime, will learn how to commit the same type of “white collar crime”
Aaron Hernandez is a previous NFL player for the New England Patriots. In 2013 Hernandez was discovered blameworthy of first degree murder. The next year he was likewise discovered liable of a double homicide. Why might a 40 million dollar rising star perpetrate such a wrongdoing? Numerous theories have been produced to clarify criminal conduct. While a few theories are not as regular, others have developed and are utilized as a part of numerous criminal reviews today. Cutting edge criminologists consolidate the most important aspects of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and biological theories to advance their comprehension of criminal behavior. Rational choice theory, psychological, biological, and strain theory are used to analyze the
Between the mid-late 1970s and the early 1980s, Dennis Nilsen began mass murdering young men in Great Britain that had at least 15 men through strangulation (Crime Investigation, 2014). In analyzing his life, many of contributions throughout his life could have influenced his criminal behaviour when committing his crimes. Many theories such as broken home hypothesis and schema therapy theory use psychological explanations that determine how the individual resulted into committing their crimes. With schema therapy theory, not only does it discuss the justification for criminal behaviour, but suggests how to reduce the relapse of criminal acts by identifying the cause or the trigger of the individual’s criminal behaviour (Vos et al., 2016). In Dennis Nilsen’s life, there are several indications such as the abandonment of his family members, the termination of a past relationship, and the reclusiveness from society that could have resulted
In criminology, differential association is a theory developed by Edwin Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior. The differential association theory is the most talked about of the learning theories of deviance. (DAT). (Sutherland) (Sociological Theories of Crime and Their Explanation on Crime , 2007)
Chapter seven and eight discusses the effects of labeling criminals, and factors that leads to deviant behaviors. To begin, we look at the early days of crime, and how people were cast out as criminals. These individuals were subjected to harsh punishment, and throwing into dungeons. However, as time went on, criminologist begin to study crime. What is crime, why does it occur, and how can it cease? For years, various criminologist concluded ways in which he or she believed was the source of the problem. In fact, theorists like Albert Reiss and E. Ivan Niye, “tended to suggest that crime and delinquency could be expected in conditions where controls were not effective”. For example, disorganized cultures that have little social control, crime
Rational choice theory is the most useful for understanding white collar crime. These are crimes that often require specialized knowledge, or access. They are often committed by individuals with advanced educations. This theory is vital to contemporary political science in addition to other chastisements for instance sociology and philosophy. The core of the rational choice theory can often be challenged amongst several courses of encounters, people typically do according to what they consider to result in the best inclusive outcome. A white collar crime is committed to make profits, they are not the acts of madmen or irrational people. They are rational acts that often require planning and careful
Situational crime prevention (SCP) and rational choice theory (RCT), together, provide an insightful explanation as to why people commit crimes and what can be done to deter them. Much of the work done in RCT and SCP was founded by Derek Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke, who wanted to understand the decision-making process of potential offenders and focus on the spatial and situational factors that make such crime possible (Farrell and Hodgkinson, 2015). This paper aims to explore SCP and its relationship to RCT, as well as analyze the works of Keith Hayward and Graham Farrell in their discussion of these ideas. This paper has four objectives: first, the paper will discuss SCP and RCT and explain the link between the two concepts. Second, this paper will examine Hayward 's discussion of RCT, SCP, and cultural criminology. Third, I will explore Farrell 's critique of Hayward 's article and consider his arguments made in response to Hayward 's conclusions. Fourth, this paper will engage in its own critique of both Hayward 's and Farrell 's work and conclude with which article makes the most compelling argument.
Why do people commit crimes? What goes through their minds before they actually commit a crime? These are questions asked from society to criminologist every time one decides they want to commit a crime. Criminologists has given us different crime causations, theories, to explain the answer to these questions. A theory is a speculation about how phenomena, behavior, or process are caused and what takes place after the cause is determined (Anderson, 2015). There are numerous theories that have evolved over time to explain why crimes are committed. These theories include anomie, strained, social control, and rational choice theory. In this research paper I will be focusing on rational choice theory. Majority of these theories focus on a macro-level, which is the largest, meanwhile some focus on a micro-level, the smaller level, depending on the circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize how rational choice theory is integrate with different crimes. The crimes included are burglary, white collar crime, and murder.
A special case of the rational choice theory is the deterrence theory, which emphasizes the costs of legal sanctions (Liska & Messner, 1999). While the rational choice theory was initially applied to the field of economics, and considered all costs, the deterrence theory was initially applied to the field of law and only considered legal costs. Accordingly, as a deterrent for committing crime, increasing the severity of punishment, increasing the certainty of punishment, and increasing the celerity of punishment will all increase the legal costs for committing crime and, consequently, decrease the benefits versus cost ratio. Furthermore, there is a specific deterrence and a general deterrence (Barkan, 2006). Specific deterrence discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through personal experience (i.e., by being punished) that the cost for their criminal behaviors is too high (Akers & Sellers, 2009). General deterrence, on the other hand, discourages individuals from committing crimes because they have learned through observation (i.e., by observing the suffering of offenders who have been punished) that the cost of committing crime is too high. By using fear, the behaviors of would-be criminals can be modified.
From 1990 to 2010, the percentage of foreign-born individuals in the United States population has skyrocketed from 7.9% or (19,767,316 individuals) to 12.9% of the population (or 39,955,854 individuals), and has received attention from researchers seeking to examine the link between immigration and decisions made by government representatives and officials (Wu and D’Angelo, 2014, p. 58). In the article “Unwarranted Disparity in Federal Sentencing: Noncitizen Crime as a Social/Group Threat”, Jawjeong Wu and Jill M. D’Angelo (2014) broadened the scope of this field by being the first researchers to look into citizenship as a factor using multilevel analysis, with the goal of determining the variance in sentence differentials across federal districts
It explains criminal careers in terms of destructive social interaction and stigma-producing encounters (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010). Social reaction theory explains why people choose criminal careers because of labeling. Negative labels have enduring effects in a person’s social interactions and self-image. Social reaction is concerned with how self-identity and behavior of people can be determined or influenced by the terms that are used to describe or classify them and is associated with the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010). It distinguishes between primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance arises from a variety of reasons that are biological, psychological, and sociological. Secondary deviance is a way of defense, attack, or adaptation to a problem caused by social reaction to primary deviant behavior (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis,
responsibility of the individual committing or partaking in the crime. Though this is a common thought it is simply untrue because it eliminates many of the social and environmental factors that encourage deviant behavior. The truth is, society plays a significant role in whether or not deviant behavior stops or continues for a specific individual who has already committed a crime. Ideas and concepts under the Labeling theories emphasis society’s roles and states that, “efforts [of] social control (…) ultimately trigger processes that trap individuals in criminal careers” (Cullen, Agnew & Wilcox 2014). Essentially, society forces invasive labels and social reactions that then cause many Individuals with criminal past to create self-fulfilling