Rational Choice Theory In Crime

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

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

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 summarizes four theories of criminology. Rational choice theory states that criminals act based on a thought process that weighs the pros and cons of criminality. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that most criminals are people capable of having rational thoughts before committing a crime. Trait theory is the view of criminology that suggests criminality is a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. Criminologists who believe in this theory feel that criminals choose to commit crime because of a brain anomaly or chemical imbalance. Social structure theory is “a view that disadvantaged economic class position is a primary cause of crime” (Seigel 139). Those who follow this theory often believe social forces can have a great effect on whether or not a person commits a crime. An example would be those who are poor are more being more prone to commit crime. Social process theory is a view that criminality depends on how a person interacts with different organizations and institutions and processes in society. For example, a family would be considered

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.

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.

Though ration choice theory does not completely explain why crime takes place, it does have its strengths and provides a thought-provoking point on the occurrences of crime. Rational choice theory is, what is known as offender specific, in other words, criminals make decisions and assess their skills before a committing law-breaking offense. The métier in this is that it promotes responsibility of consequences, you did the crime, therefore, you should do the crime. The thinking here is that because you were careful in your planning on the execution of the crime, you are guilty. Although I do not totally buy into this argument, it is understandable to believe that because individuals who commit robbery, carefully select their target, wait

The Rational Choice Theory, as more commonly referred to as Choice Theory, is a view as to why criminals commit crimes, and more importantly why juveniles choose to be delinquent. The problem of juvenile delinquency in keeping with this viewpoint, makes juvenile delinquency an individual problem and not a social problem. The Rational Choice theory will be detailed throughout this paper as well as the theory’s established ways in which the theorists believe juvenile delinquency can be prevented. The validity of the Rational Choice Theory will also briefly be discussed.

Theories of crime causation get to the fundamental characteristics of human nature. Theories of crime causation can be separated into trait theories and choice theories. Both types of theories make valid points about the causes of crime, yet they are have different implications for preventing the causes of crime. Thesis: Trait theories and choice theories both assume that humans are self-interested, but their conceptions of self-interest limit the applicability of each to certain types of crime. Trait theories appear more suited for explaining the causes of violent crime, whereas choice theories are more appropriate to property crimes or economic crimes.

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

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).

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.

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.

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).