Rational Choice Theory: Double Indemnity

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

In other words, individuals would weigh the costs and benefits of each choice in order to make rational decisions. The individuals purposefully commit a crime to meet their everyday needs such as money. The rational choice theory consists of individualism, the magnification of their goals and self-interested. In the film, Walter and Phyllis engage in the rational choice theory when plotting the murder of Mr. Dietrichson. Walter and Phyllis clearly understand what the law of double indemnity proposed since they secretly met to discuss how they could stage the murder as accidental. Walter is an experienced insurance representative so he knows what the insurance analyst look for in similar cases and mentally prepares Phyllis for any questions that his company would ask. They were careful to not being seen talking in public, revealing that they knew the consequences of the crime. Throughout the movie, Walter and Phyllis' true intention began to become obvious. Walter was in love with Phyllis and desired to be with her, so he believed that if he murders Mr. Dietrichson, Phyllis and he would be happy together. However, Phyllis' true intention was to receive the double indemnity of the accidental insurances and get away with murder, once again. She was just using Walter for her higher self-

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

The classical perspective founded by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham; stated that at people choose to commit crime after they considered the pros and cons that could be associated with a crime, and believed that the pros outweighed the cons (Tonry,2014). The theory relied on deterring criminal acts by assuring that the consequences of crime are absolute, harsh, and quickly administered (Tonry,2014).

Deterrence and Rational Choice Theory and the three strikes laws are seen by some researcher as the way to maintain control, deter crime and deliver harsh punishment for repeat offenders by subjecting them to the three strikes law. They believe that if the punishment is harsh that offenders will be deterred to commit crime. We will take a look at these theories, and see if they are really the answer to our crime problems in the USA. It will also allow us to ask the question which is: can theories work better individually or should we incorporate them to make a better policy? And if we do incorporate them will in a policy, will they reduce crime, deter criminal from committing future crimes, and help to reduce future criminal acts? Lastly, can we implement general strain theory to into the policy so that we can try to figure out what is wrong, along with reevaluating the three strike law and see if the mandatory sentencing is working or is part of the problem?

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.

There are three principles that the deterrence theory follows. The first principle is severe punishment. Its basis is any criminal penalty must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits to be obtained by crime. Our perceptions about the severity of punishment is, the more people suffer, and the greater the severity of that punishment, than the criminal has ‘paid’ for their crime. For example, capital punishment. There are only two options you can receive as

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

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.

Deterrence has also been labeled “utilitarian” and justifiable where a particular punishment results in a less painful outcome that would otherwise occur. Deterrence is broken down into two categories. The first category is ‘general deterrence’, where the objective is to deter other members of society into committing the same crime, or similar crimes. The second category is ‘specific deterrence’, where the objective is to deter the individual offender from committing the same or similar crimes against society in the future. This theory focuses strongly on the offender and attempts to predict his or her future behavior by looking at factors such as past criminal record, attitude, motivation and likelihood of reformation and rehabilitation.

Cesare Beccaria published the well-known book On Crimes and Punishments in 1764. Beccaria’s thoughts are commonly referred to as the classical theory. (Shoemaker, 2009, p. 64-65) The work in On Crimes and Punishments inspired multitudes of criminal philosophers two in particular; Locke and Hume. These two believed that, “human nature was predicated upon the search for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that human action was consequently organized around calculative strategies aimed at utility maximization.”(Hayward, 2007, p. 233) This thought justification is how those who believe in the Rational Choice Theory get further away from the social issues that may affect the commission of crimes and try to keep it focused on the individual desires of pleasure and avoidance of pain. This thought process may also be in part to the societal want of the juvenile delinquent’s behavior to be solely their fault based on an economic standpoint because if it is individual fault society does not need to fund programs to fix it. As stated in the book The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, “… a rational choice perspective on criminal behavior- was intended to locate criminological findings within a framework particularly suitable for thinking about policy relevant research.” (Cornish & Clarke, 2014, p. 1) That is to say that yes, many philosophers may truly believe in Choice Theory but some were probably motivated more by economic

Punishment given to offenders acts as an example for society and deters others from committing the same crime. Punishment serves as proof and as a model to the rest of society that criminal behavior will have consequences and can be seen as an educational tool. When using punishment as a threat, warning or intimidation tactic for the prevention of evil, it is formally referred to as general deterrence. “General deterrence stems from the perceived threat or fear of the inherent elements of punishment itself, not through some indirect process. Examples of general deterrence from fear of direct sanctions are refraining from speeding for fear of a fine or in my argument, refraining from a felony for fear of incarceration” (Williams & Hawkins, 547). By presenting

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

According to the rational choice theory human actions are based on rationality. In other words an individual that commit a crime is rational and he/she thinks that the decision that they are taken is the one that bring the most benefits. Crime is committed for a rational person after the pros and cons from disobeying the law are evaluated.

The Classical and Neo-Classical theories are based upon the ideation of free will and rational choice. This theory occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs—when people pursue self-interest in the absence of effective punishments. They are simplex modules to follow when applying them to the role of individual responsibility. This theory further states that crime is a free-willed choice, that a person is aware of their actions, they are aware of their choice to commit crime. This is the theory of free will and rational thought. For instance, if a man robs a bank with complete mental awareness, he is aware of his actions.