Essay about Burglary and the Rational Choice Theory

Rational choice theory is predicated on the idea that crime is a matter of choice in which a potential criminal weighs the cost of committing an act against the potential benefits that might be gained (Siegel, 2011, p. 84). James Q. Wilson expands on this decision in his book Thinking About Crime, stating that “people who are likely to commit crime are unafraid of breaking the law

While watching Taken, a criminal justice major can pick out several different examples of criminological theories. However, the theory I found to be the most relevant was the rational choice theory. Several sociologists and criminologists believe that an individual’s decision to commit a crime is determined by several personal reasons. Those who strongly enforce the rational choice theory believe that an individual who is considering criminal behavior first decides whether or not he/she is willing to become

Each of these theories had led to many new theories used today, such as the Rational Choice theory, Biosocial and Psychological Theory, Critical Theory, Cultural Deviance Theory, Life Course Theory, and many more. The one thing in common with every theory is that they all explain at least one behavioral factor that leads to crime. Today, all these theories, and more, are researched and taken into account when trying to understand why a criminal does what they do.

This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

With this perspective, people are considered rational thinkers, and when a person commits a crime, the person is making a rational choice to engage in criminal behavior. If a person steals a purse, they have chosen to do so because of rational thought. The person could be envious, stealing a purse just for fun, or many other reasons. The real issue is that the person rationally decides to take the purse under the wrongful thinking that it will bring them some benefit, and this benefit is important to their own purposes. Crime occurs because people rationally weigh whether they will obtain a reward for committing a criminal act instead of being punished for the criminal act. It is ultimately decided by which one has the strongest pull on the individual.

The third of the contemporary sociological theories is rational choice theory. In stark contrast to social conflict theory and social disorganization theory which are macro level theories, rational choice theory is a micro level theory (Kubrin, 2012). Rational choice theory focuses on the individual motivation behind criminal behavior. Specifically the idea that the choice to commit criminal behavior is a choice based on a type of risk reward scenario. The person contemplating a criminal act consciously weighs the risk associated with the crime against the reward they stand to gain from the crime.

In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting the Rational Choice Theory(s) and the Trait Theory(s). We will start with the history of the two theories and progress toward some of the individual principles in the theories. Next step will be explaining how each theory contributes to criminal behavior. My closing paragraph will conclude the essay as well as give detailed information on how society punishes the crimes committed.

So what is the definition of a rational theory? “The rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention”. In the book it basically explains it in a much easier way. The book defines it as the, “explanations of crime and delinquency held that human behavior was a matter of choice”.

Initially, the main belief was that criminal behavior was based on rational choice or thought, where criminals were believed to be intelligent beings and weighed the pros and cons before deciding to commit a crime; classicists Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham introduced this view. Essentially, these criminals would compare the risks of committing the crime, such as getting caught, jail or prison time, being disowned by family and friends, and so forth; and the rewards, such as money and new possessions. After making comparisons, the person would make a decision based on whether the risk was greater than the reward. This is like what is presented in an article on Regis University Criminology Program’s website, which states that a criminal “operates based on free will and rational thought when choosing what and what not to do. But that simplistic view has given way to far more complicated theories” (“Biological Theories Primer”). Nowadays, biological theories make attempts in explaining criminal behavior in terms of factors that are primarily outside of the control of the individual.

In this sense for Boyle the benefit of committing crime outweighed the cost, which explains his ongoing criminal behaviour. However, these benefits received would be an after effect of committing these crimes. What the Rational Choice theory fails to explain is why the need for committing the crime in the first place. Although Rational Choice theory does mention the psychological and sociological aspects that the offender brings with them into certain situations, it bases these aspects on calculating whether to commit the crime or not, rather than what sociological or psychological effects would contribute towards committing the crime in the first place i.e. strain, inequality, poverty, learned behaviour etc. Therefore it still does not seek to explain the individual's social circumstances. In this sense according to Newburn (2007) it fails to take sufficient account of the structural conditions within which individual decision-making takes place (Newburn, 2007,296) Simply Rational Choice theory does not explain the reasons for committing crime in the first place. It explains the process that takes place when there is an opportunity for crime. According to Newburn (2007) it fails to explain or is unconcerned with the motivation of the offender. What it does seek to explain is the reasons why offenders such as Boyle

The rational choice theory and the broken windows theory are similar in that they are both theories that suggest ways of deterring criminal activity. In fact, the broken windows theory is a subcategory of the rational choice theory. However, though they are interrelated, they differ in some aspects. Rational choice theory suggests that convincing potential and known criminals that the risk of committing a crime outweighs the benefits to be gained can deter them from committing criminal acts. On the other hand, the broken window theory suggests that urban decay can lead to increased criminal activity, so public order in urban neighborhoods needs to be maintained in order to deter criminal actions.

Choice theory was born out of the perspective of crime causation which states that criminality is the result of conscious choice. This theory is also known as the rational choice theory. According to this theory, the choice whether or not to commit a criminal act is the result of a rational thought process that weighs the risks of paying the costs of committing a crime, against the benefits obtained. In other words, if the benefits--monetary or otherwise--outweigh the risks of sustaining the costs, such as fines, imprisonment or execution, then according to this theory the individual would be inclined to commit the crime, all other things being equal. In this calculus, the benefits are known. For example, “this diamond that I want to

Rational choice theory involves both offense-specific and offender-specific crimes. Offense-specific crime is crime committed when an offender considers all parts of the actual act before they decide to commit the wrongdoing. The offender would weigh police presence in that neighborhood, if the home is well protected, will people be in the home, ease of getting in and getting out, or if stolen property will be valuable for sale, etc. Offender-specific crime is when the potential offender determines if they have what it take to commit the crime based on self interest. They only think about their personal experience and not particularly about the offense itself. Offender-specific crime is when an offender considers;

Rational choice theory and social control theory both show why an individual may commit a criminal act, but they both also draw criticism of their approach. Rational choice theory critics point out that “The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective action. That is, if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves?” (Crossman, 2015). The theory focuses only on the individual’s mindset and doesn’t take into account any of their social structure. The society an individual grows up in may make them more prone to commit crime. Social control theory, in particular the study conducted by Travis Hirschi, also

What is it like to think as an offender and what is it like to be a victim of crime? Rational choice and routine activities theories differ from each other because one looks at the offender side and the other looks at the victim. Rational choice theory believes that law-violating behavior is the result of cautious thought and planning of an individual by weighting the cost and the benefits before committing a crime. (Siegel 2011, p. 85). However, according to Siegel 2011, routine activities theory believes that victims put themselves in danger by engaging in high-risk activities, such as going out late at night, living in a high-crime area, and associating with high-risk peers. (p.74). Is this theory inferring that in order to avoid crime and victimization citizens must stay home? Despite of being opposite to each other, they tend to happen concurrently. According to Larry J. Siegel (2011) “Rational choice is the view that crime is a function of a decision-making process in which the potential offender weighs the potential costs and benefits of an illegal act.”(p.84) This theory has its roots in the classical criminology developed by the Italian social thinker Cesare Beccaria, whose utili- tarian methodology strongly influenced the criminal justice system and was therefore widely accepted throughout Europe and the United States. (Siegel, 2011, p.84). Rational choice theory includes three things that play a major role in the process of trying to explain crime, which will be