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
According to the text the rational choice theory 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. Evaluating Ted Bundy according to the rational choice theory, he knew what he was doing weighed his options, picked how he would attack kill and rape his victims. He meticulously sought out his victims. Typically Bundy would bludgeon his victims, strangle them to death then rape them or engage in necrophilia. According to this theory he fully planned out each attack knowing that it was wrong, illegal, and immoral.
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
Bill Cosby was charged with aggravated indecent assault involving “Temple University employee” that happen a decade ago. Andrea Constand the victim said that Cosby gave her quaaludes then sexually assault her. Constand filed a civil suit against cosby and demanding for the lawsuit to be public and Bill Cosby said “yes” to the question. Over “a dozen women claim that they were drugged and molested by the comedian”.
Facts: D was arrested for fleeing from police. charged w/ obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine. He was forced to take a delousing agent. W/ O touching the detainees, officers looks at all parts of the detainees. D alleges that he was told to lift his genitals, and cough while squatting. D was then admitted into the jail facility , released the next day, and the charges were dismissed.
Similarly, the Supreme Court case Romano v. Harrington contested the right to free speech in a public school setting. It involved high school English teacher Michael Romano, who was the faculty advisor of the school’s extracurricular student-published newspaper Crow’s Nest. A student, not part of the newspaper’s student staff, came to him to publish an article in protest of the proposed Martin Luther King Jr. The article was very provocative, so Romano helped him to soften it, but he did not attempt to censor it. Almost directly following this, due to his insensitivity to the racial tension present in their school, Romano was removed from his position as faculty advisor. He did retain his teaching job, though. Romano argued that the principal
I thought the Bill Cosby trial was very interesting. One simple reason why it caught my eye with all those females saying he did rape me 15 years ago and etc. It was sorta of like a train reaction if you understand what I mean. I guess I had never experience what those women went threw but i wonder why the speak up now , why not earlier?. It did surprise me to a point how there was no evidence to make a case. I understand it happened so long ago but I wonder if Bill Cosby had good connection with people in court house. I always think differently because I watch to much crime shows.
The rational choice is when the decision to break the law is made after the potential offender weighs out the cost and benefits of the planned action and decides the benefits of the out way the consequences. Criminals like Alonzo maybe motivated by various emotions and human characteristics: need, anger, lust, vanity, thrill seeking, greed and revenge. “Regardless of the motive, criminal offenders are people who make the decision to put their own needs ahead of the rest of us; even though there are may be serious consequences for their actions.” As for Alonzo there was the benefit of him gaining money, respect and drugs from the streets at no cost, because they believed that he wouldn't get caught. He had been a dirty cop for several years and hadn’t paid any costs for his actions. Everywhere they went, Alonzo got away with more money or drugs by shaking down or just scaring the bad
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”.
The two links listed above will allow the class to read all of the charges against Rudolph in both of his court cases. The reality is he was charged with a great deal more than he was convicted of and the conviction was solidified through a plea agreement. In the long run it saved money as appeals and jury trials are expensive and although he avoided the death penalty and was not convicted of all murders charged with they were able to secure a sentence that would keep him behind bars in a Federal Prison for the rest of his life.
By contrast, rational choice theory does not apply to certain offenses such as, involuntarily manslaughter or unintentional assaults that delinquents are less likely to consider about the possible benefits. For example, involuntarily manslaughter can occur when a delinquent is intoxicated and accidentally ran over a pedestrian. Certainly, this accident is irresponsible behavior, but the adolescent is not rationally outweighing the consequences and the benefit; thus, the rational choice theory would not apply to this offense. Unintentional assaults may occur if kids feel threatened by their friends, family, or peers and decided to attack them in order to protect themselves or their love ones. In this scenario, adolescents are not motivated by
According to Paternoster and Bachman (2001), “the rational choice perspective was explicitly developed to assist policy thinking,” aside from, “every act of crime involves some choice by the offender and that he or she can be held responsible for that choice and can legitimately be punished (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 34).” A successful example of the rational choice theory illustrates as Paternoster and Bachman (2001) points out, “that studies of the victims of serial killers and rapists through Rossmo’s (1995) geographic profiling, which is bases on findings from environmental criminology (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991) in that most crime is committed within activity spaces of offenders
Along with Dereck Cornish, Clarke played a leading role in revitalizing the classical school of criminology by developing rational choice theory. This approach assumes that offenders have agency/free will and decide to commit a crime because in their view (limited thought it may be) it benefits them to do
Sexual offending by adult acquaintances is usually a purposive and deliberate act and therefore, according to Rational Choice Theory (which assumes this), in both the planning and execution of the offence, the offender will have made a series of rational choices, with the intent on benefiting themselves outweighing any perceived risks associated with their commission of this crime. (Clarke & Felson, 1993; Cornish & Clarke, 2008). Rational Choice Theory suggests that the decision to engage in criminal behaviour is influenced by a rational assessment of the cost-benefit of the efforts, rewards and risks when encountered with a crime opportunity (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; 2008). This perspective proposes that crime is committed because it provides the most effective means of achieving desired goals, such as money,
The Rational choice theory is a belief that children choose to commit criminal acts once they have carefully considered the pros and cons of their actions, and that delinquency is a matter of choice that is made by an offender; who believes that what they can gain from committing a crime outweighs the punishment that may follow. Rational Choice theory is probably the oldest known theory which attempts to explain the link between juveniles and delinquency. The argument was first raised by classical criminologist, Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria, along with other classical criminologists, believed that because people have free will. They have the ability to choose their behavior, and when an individual makes a decision to break the law, it is typically