Rational Choice Theory : Capital Punishment And Rational Choice Theory

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.

Rational choice theory originates from the oldest criminological school of thought and criminological theorists, but the theory itself is new, only forming in the last five decades. Ronald Clarke and Derek Cornish, using the work of previous criminologists, put forth the rational choice perspective as a criminological theory (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). This theory has its roots in the classical school of thought in which individuals had the power to make decisions after weighing the consequence of such actions (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). The work of Cesare Beccaria in the late 1700’s cemented this theory’s existence from the beginning of criminology (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). Rational choice theory was also greatly influenced by Jeremy Bentham and his idea of felicific calculus, in which a decision to commit crime is made after putting risk variables in an equation (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). Bentham says all humans work this way, evaluating whether a crime is worth committing (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). Bentham was inspired by utilitarian theory, which states that individuals make decisions to maximize profits and minimize pain (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). In addition, rational choice theory is also based on traditional economic choice theory that states people will choose what will appease their desires after weighing their options (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2016). This paper will examine the effectiveness of the application of rational

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.

This theory focuses on the criminal behavior being linked to social control. Street crimes that are criminal in nature are characterized by Matsueda, Kreger and Huizinga as “irrational and suboptimal.” When criminals rob, most have made the financial decision to go through with the crime; they have found it both rational and optimal. They not only weighted the rewards of robbing but also the risks. Most figure that robbing was the best possible decision they could have made to help them through a crisis. According to Mr. McCarthy, there are four different assumptions of the rational choice theory; people have certain preferences, those preferences are stable, they only think about the present rather than look to the future's outcomes and most of those outcomes are risky and ambiguous. Sometimes, people may act irrationally, prohibiting the rational choice approach because of it being a cause of a sensitive time of their life or a sudden adjustment to their everyday life. McCarthy also brings up that the rational choice theory proposes everyday expenses and costs will influence people to offend. The rational choice theory presumes that the risk attitude of offenders are not grounded in reality. Overall, criminals do choose to make poor choices but it is those choices that are surrounded by emotions and

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

Criminal justice system has been an important aspect of every society and has proven to be effective in many way over the period of decades. Nevertheless, there are many areas and situations that it has come short in delivery what it is set up for due to human erroneous nature in executing justice. Even though criminal justice systems differs from one country to another, there are also many similarities among them. The most obvious one is that they have a common goal to administer justice, protect human rights, enforce the law and secure the people and their properties. Another area of concern in criminal justice system is the practice of capital punishment in which there is a strong disapproval its practices. In has been observed

The death penalty is under a theory call “Just Deserts” Radelet and Akers (1997) suggest that the citizens who commit cirimes should be put under an execution for tributive reasons. These citizens that commit crime should suffer, the effects of life imprisonment are not enough for murdering a person. Some views are worthy to go under a debate, but no research can tell us if an issue is right or wrong. No studies can answer the question of what these citizens or criminals deserve, nor settle debates surrounding the death penalty.

The five theories of punishment, therefore, tend to be associated with the laws ensuring justice. The Rational Choice Theory, or deterrence, is a Utilitarian approach that attempts to discourage others from committing a similar act. It focuses the mind on the consequences that will befall if they choose to follow the same course. This, however, is nonsensical to assume that criminal acts are results of rational behaviour, which future criminals can be dissuaded from by merely evoking fear. B. Hoose, a classical utilitarian, says do the act that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Capital punishment therefore is justifiable because not only does it act as a deterrent but it also rids society of dangerous and undesirable citizens. Although even though capital punishment may have a good effect on one person, it would make a terrorist a martyr and therefore unfortunately encourage further crime. Retribution, another central theory of punishment, fits naturally with people’s feelings because it suggests that wrongdoers should have to pay for what they did. The principle of just deserts

Rational choice theories, was one of the criminological theories portrayed in the film. An example of rational choice theories portrayed in the film, was when officer Tom (Ryan Phillippe) picked up Peter (Larenz Tate) and they got into an argument and officer Tom killed Peter. He pushed peter out the car and dragged him to a field to make it seem like a murder. He left and then burnt his vehicle to hide the evidence. In this scene, he showed that there no difference between a criminal and a law-abiding, which is my reasoning behind using this example. It also showed that crime is a freewill and that criminals are normal people that make wrong decisions. Another theory shown in the film is sociological theories, an example of this theory is

The Classical School of Criminology was developed by two utilitarian philosophers, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the early 17th century. The Classical School of Criminology is an important theory in the framework of criminal behavior, with principle themes that include: criminal acts are of individuals free will and rational deliberation, calculating, and hedonistic beings. Criminals make a rational choice and choose criminal acts due to maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. As well as minimizing crime, the would be offender must be convinced that the likely punishment for the crime would be swift, certain and proportionately (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001, p. 11).

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.