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

When it comes down to it, we all make our own decisions. We weigh the pros and cons to decide if the benefits outweigh the potential punishments. The idea of rational choice theory is that people choose their actions based on the options available and choose the one they most prefer. If their choice is to eat a donut or to not, when they really want to eat it, chances are they will eat it. Once you add in punishment, it gets more complicated. If the person were to be punished for eating it, they will most likely think it through more. Say, it’s a teenager who wants to eat the donut but he knows his father will ground him if he does. This donut is the teen’s favorite kind and he really really wants to eat the donut, but the risk of punishment is there, the teen will weigh the consequences against the benefits. Would he choose a few minutes of a tasty donut and risk being grounded for a week or would he choose to forgo the donut and not get in trouble? The act of having a choice to do something you want to do that also has consequences and causes you to rationally decide if it’s worth it or not is rational choice theory.

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).

This paper will cover two criminological theories and they will be applied to two types of criminality. The two theories chosen for the paper were developmental theory and rational choice theory. The two types of crimes that were chosen were organized crime, specifically focusing on gangs, and terrorism. Then the crimes will be compared and contrasted. Finally, the developmental theory will be applied to organized crime to explain why and how it happens. The rational choice theory will be applied to terrorism to explain what compels individuals to attempt this form of criminality.

It is unfortunate that crime exists in our daily lives. There really is no way to stopping crime completely, no matter how many laws or punishment are present, people will continue to keep breaking rules. There are many theories of why that may be the case, for example, Caesar Lombroso and his “atavistic” theory with the Positivist School theory and how people were “born criminals”, or the Rational Choice Theory, devised by Cornish and Clarke, described that people could think rationally and how people will naturally avoid pain and seek pleasure referred to as “hedonism” (Cartwright, 2017, lecture 4). Since it is apparent that crime will continue to exist, it is not only important to understand the study of crime and the feedbacks to it,

Rational choice theory was first discovered in the mid-eighteenth century and was originally referred to as classical theory. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham and scholar César Beccaria, were some of the first to analyze and investigate this theory. In order to determine whether or not a dichotomous relationship exists between an individual’s free will and their decision to commit a crime. One must first consider whether that individual has control over making a rational decision. During this time offenders were considered to be rational, therefore the punishment received for the crime committed, must significantly

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.

In the modern world, abhorrent crimes result in major effects such as deaths and injuries. Examples include terrorism where there are multiple casualties. The law, while developing punishment for the offenders, presents the verdict to the individual in different ways such as jail sentence. However, in crimes involving serious impacts, capital punishment is considered a major verdict which is described as the practice of killing an offender as a result of their crimes. This punishment, also referred as death penalty, is inflicted upon following judicial procedure. The foundation for passing this verdict can be explained through the classical criminology which in the modern version is referred as rational choice theory (RCT). Notably, the foundation for inflicting death penalty judgment is according to the assumptions and arguments of RCT.

The goal of this paper is to analyze if the criminal justice system, as it is constructed today, is doing enough to punish and to deter crime. It will also look to see if there is deterrent in punishment at all. To do this there are a number of theories that should be examined. This includes the following Deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and lastly the positivist theory. The deterrence theory is a very basic, but overlapping theory to all of the others. We learn that at a very early age that reward vs cost is a critical thing to weigh when making decisions. This carries over to the decision to commit a crime and not to commit a criminal act. The rational choice theory states that human beings are decision making creatures. This theory would subscribe to the idea that the tougher the punishment, the higher the cost. The higher the cost, the likelihood of an individual committing a crime would drop. The positivist theory subscribes to the opposite of the rational choice theory. Under this school of thought individuals with lower intelligence or lacking social status do not have the same ability to make a rational choice when it comes to the ability to make a choice to, or not to, commit a crime.

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

After watching the video and reading the two articles, I think that the rational choice theory applies. The teen clearly showed that she made a willful decision to steal the girl scout's money. And to justify why, she explains how easy of a crime it was to commit. However, she only considered the rewards out of this scenario. She did not think so much of the consequences such as getting caught and facing charges. I think that her early drug use influenced her choices. I don't think that the strain theory applies, because she didn't need the money for anything significant. She wasn't placed in a position where if she didn't have money for something particular, it would hinder her success. Also, it was stated that the teen's father immediately

Rational choice theory, also known simply as choice theory, is the assessment of a potential offender to commit a crime. Choice theory is the belief that committing a crime is a rational decision, based on cost benefit analysis. The would-be offender will weigh the costs of committing a particular crime: fines, jail time, and imprisonment versus the benefits: money, status, heightened adrenaline. Depending on which factors out-weigh the other, a criminal will decide to commit or forgo committing a crime. This decision making process makes committing a crime a rational choice. This theory can be used to explain why an offender will decide to commit burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, or murder.

Rational choice and institutional approaches are increasingly applied to comparative politics. Discuss the key assumptions, methods and objectives of these approaches. Next, what are some of the more useful applications of rational choice and institutionalism to the study of comparative politics? Some of the less useful applications? In your answer, be sure to discuss at least two rational choice and two institutional works that we covered this semester.