Gary Becker Definition Of Murder

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

Rational Choice Theory emerged. "According to this view, law-violating behavior should be viewed as an event that occurs when an offender decides to risk violating the law after considering his or her own personal situation (need for money, personal values, learning experiences) and situational factors (how well a target is protected, how affluent the neighborhood is, how efficient the local police happen to be). Before choosing to commit a crime, the reasoning criminal evaluates the risk of apprehension, the seriousness of the expected punishment, the value of the criminal enterprise, and his or her immediate need for criminal gain." (Siegel, p.131, 1992)

All criminals that use the rational choice theory before they commit their certain crimes does not always understand how to weigh the costs and benefits of certain acts. There will always be some kind of calculation before a rational crime occurs. For example, before a robbery takes place the criminals must first choose the location, place and time that they would like to have for a certain robbery crime. The criminals involved in this certain robbery will weigh the costs and benefits of the crime and then think about the whole situation itself. When the criminals have finished with their strategy plans they will have a final thought about the punishment for committing such a crime and look at the benefits to see if this is the crime they would really like to try (Siegel, 2011)

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

This idea of a rational calculation of the advantages and disadvantages of crime runs parallel with the Rational Choice Theory offered to us by

The rational choice theory gives insight in to why otherwise law abiding citizens would commit crime. Most burglars do not burglarize because they want something specific from the victim's property nor are they saving the cash proceeds for a long-term goal. They burglarize because they need the money right now to pay off bills, buy food and clothes for their family or to purchase alcohol and illegal drugs. Most burglars would turn to making an honest living, but, even that does not meet their immediate desires for cash. Nor would the earned wages support their lifestyles. (Wright & Decker, 1994).

Sociological theories of crime contain a great deal of useful information in the understanding of criminal behavior. Sociological theories are very useful in the study of criminal behavior because unlike psychological and biological theories they are mostly macro level theories which attempt to explain rates of crime for a group or an area rather than explaining why an individual committed a crime. (Kubrin, 2012). There is however some micro level sociological theories of crime that attempts to explain the individual’s motivation for criminal behavior (Kubrin, 2012). Of the contemporary

Rational choice theory is a criminology theory designed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark which states that before people commit a crime they think about what they are going to do (Snook, Dhami, & Kavanagh, 2011). They consider the pros and cons before performing the criminal action. The entire premise of the rational choice theory is that each individual, regardless of whether rich, poor, educated, or uneducated, all utilize rationality when making the decision to commit a crime (Taylor, 2013). The rational choice theory postulates that when a person weighs the costs and benefits of a crime, that person decides whether or not the benefits are worth the risk. It is about maximizing his or her own self-interest (Jacques & Wright, 2010). The

Intent or aforethought is a major difference between murder and manslaughter; murder is intentional and/or planned while

When asking whether criminals are rational decision makers, or are they mostly motivated by uncontrollable psychological and emotional drives or social forces such as poverty and despair, there is not a definite and concise answer because it all depends on the criminal and the many factors affecting his/her decision. For instance, criminals are not driven to commit a crime by a single force. From a Rational Theorist perspective, a criminal when deciding whether to commit a crime or not, he will base his decision on the cost/benefits that come from that crime. For example, the criminal before committing the crime would consider whether or not he will be arrested, the harshness of the penalty for committing the crime, and finally the rewards

RCT is centered on the argument that criminal actions are not determined by environmental, psychological or biological factors which prompt the offender to commit the crime. The main assumption of this theory is that an individual’s actions are willingly and voluntarily executed by the person (Hastie & Dawes, 2010). According to RCT, offenders have a rational choice to make before committing a crime. Prior to committing the crime, an individual employs their logic to evaluate their options and make a decision on the action course. This assumption argues that the offender use their

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.

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;

People chose all behavior and including all criminal behavior. Which in this case the choices that criminals make brings them pleasure and adrenaline. Criminal choices can be controlled by fear of punishment, but not all the time. The crime will be limited when the benefits are reduced and the costs increase. Rational choice theory is a perspective that holds criminality in the result of conscious choice. Not to mention, that it is predicted that individuals choose to commit crime when the benefits outweigh the costs of disobeying the law. In the rational choice theory, individuals are seen as motivated offenders by their needs, wants and goals that express their preferences. This theory has been applied to a wide of range in crime, such as robbery, drug use, vandalism, and white collar crime. Furthermore, rational choice theory had a revival in sociology in the early 1960s, under the heading of exchange theory, and by the end of the decade was having a renewed influence in criminology, first as control theory and later as routine activities theory.

Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.