Rational Choice Theory

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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).

Criminology is the study of why individuals commit crimes. Several sociologists and criminologists have developed theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior and why it occurs. In earlier times, theories such as biological determinism and phrenology were often used to explain criminal behavior. Those theories have since been proven to be unreasonable and unrealistic. As time passed, sociologists and criminologists created more plausible theories including the rational choice, classical, conflict, labeling, life course, critical, strain, social disorganization, routine activity, social control, and positivist theories. In attempts to better understand these criminological theories, an individual could apply one (or more) of these theories to real-life events or things he/she has seen on television. I have chosen to apply the rational choice theory to the popular movie Taken starring Liam Neeson and explain the many examples found throughout the movie.

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.

The topic I have chosen to write this research paper over is the rational choice theory. The rational choice theory started with the work of Cesare Beccaria in the late eighteenth century. From that point forward, the theory has been developed and opened up to incorporate different viewpoints, like discouragement and routine activity theory. The rational choice theory is a monetary rule that expresses that people dependably settle on reasonable and legitimate choices. These choices furnish individuals with the best advantage or fulfillment, given the decisions accessible and are likewise in their most elevated self-interest.

1. Write the six questions of the Wise Choice Process and answer each one as it relates to your situation

The 1944 Crime and Drama film, Double Indemnity, directed by Billy Wilder, showed the love story between an insurance representative and one of his client's wife who plotted to commit insurance fraud on his company, Pacific All Risk Insurance CO., in order to be together. The insurance representative, Walter Neff, met Phyllis Dietrichson during one of his visit to Mr. Dietrichson's home. Phyllis inevitably becomes interested in acquiring accidental insurances for her husband which includes double indemnity. Walter begins to suspect her intentions but shortly later, they began to have an affair and Phyllis proposes to kill her husband in order to receive the money. Walter agrees to this proposal and plans the perfect death so his company would

According to one of rational choice theory’s prominent and more thoughtful contemporary exponents, Peter C. Ordeshook, “four books mark the beginning of modern political theory: Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Duncan Black’s Theory of Committees and Elections (1958), William H. Riker’s A Theory of Political Coalitions (1962), and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent (1962). These volumes, along with Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), began such a wealth of research that political scientists today have difficulty digesting and synthesizing all but small parts of it. Consequently, the full value of this research often goes

The rational choice theory and social disorganization theory contrast in so many ways. The rational choice theory is when wrongdoers choose to commit crimes and is punished severely. On the other hand, the social disorganization theory is differences in crime levels based on structure and culture factors that shape the nature of social order across communities. Furthermore, the difference between the two is that one of the is about a decision making process choice and the other is about how socialization controls criminal behavior.

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.