The Costs And Benefits Of 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

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

No human being is born with an innate desire to commit crime; growing up in an impoverished community with subpar education and little opportunity

Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime

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,

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

According to http://cebcp.org, “Broken window model focuses on the importance of disorder (e.g., broken windows) in generating and sustaining more serious crime.” Wilson and Kelling are the creator of this model. They notice that neighborhoods who have high crime rate, consider of “disreputable people”. They are the people who hang out on the corner, the mental ill who pace back and forth up and down the streets, and those juvenile delinquents that love to pickpocket other people. Most of the communities are low income minority communities that Wilson and Keiling looked at. Wilson and Keiling does not think that poverty, racial segregation, and residential mobility and other social issues is not the root causes to high crime rates, They think to restore order needs to be placed in these community as Nixon will say “Law and Order”. They think the government cannot eliminate the root causes. Policing should be enforce more into the community to create a safe haven for these communities. By not focusing on social reform, rehabilitation is too costly and difficult. Wilson said to increase cost of crime by increasing punishment in prison. It will help measure deterrence, and if it does not work incapacitation. He also the believe that the root causes is caused by causal fallacy. Wilson and Keiling believed that officers need to go back to the style of enforcement. They explain that there should be more foot patrol have officers get know the resident while maintaining order.

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

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.

Scientific ideologies are applied to the study of crime to suggest that society constructs criminals. One theory states that most people have been taught that crime is immoral, while those more likely to commit a crime have learned “beliefs that are favorable to crime.” Our background, education, class, and belief system are all fundamental in the way we view what is considered acceptable behavior. Societal interference suggests these factors are all responsible for criminal activity. According to sociological perception, criminal behavior is

The effects of crime on victim can have a mixed feeling about making a victim impact statement. They may want to tell the judge or parole hearing officer how the crime affected their life and yet they may be anxious because you don't know how to prepare an impact statement or you don't want to bring back bad memories by describing how the crime has hurt you. The victim impact statements may include descriptions of:

Rational choice theory and social control theory both show why an individual may commit a criminal act, but they both also draw criticism of their approach. Rational choice theory critics point out that “The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective action. That is, if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves?” (Crossman, 2015). The theory focuses only on the individual’s mindset and doesn’t take into account any of their social structure. The society an individual grows up in may make them more prone to commit crime. Social control theory, in particular the study conducted by Travis Hirschi, also

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.

In this essay I will examine how government polices since the last general election have impacted crime levels. The economic model of crime pioneered by Gary S. Becker in 1968 describes how criminals weigh up the costs and benefits of criminal activity against the legal alternatives. The model has four main aspects in it, which are: the utility derived from legal work (U (W)), the likelihood of getting caught when engaging in criminal activity (p), utility from successful crime (U(W ͨ )) and the disutility from punishment when getting caught (U(S))