Rational Choice Crime Control Strategies Rational Choice Crime Control Strategies According to Rational Choice Theory, individuals violate laws out of a sense of need, accomplishment, or perception of survival. The Theory also concludes that rational individuals carefully weigh possible benefits and consequences of breaking the law (Siegel, 2006). After considering benefits and consequences, one may make a “rational” choice to commit the crime. He or she may base this rationalization on “greed, revenge, need, anger, lust, jealousy, thrill-seeking, or vanity” (Siegel, 2006, p. 98). Of the scenarios, the wealthy man going through a divorce is the most likely example of a rational choice criminal.
They are failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and confrontation with negative stimuli (Agnew, 1992). The major assumptions of General Strain Theory place emphasis on these types of strains and stressors and how they cause deviant behavior. The connection between the strains and deviant behavior are the negative emotions that are produced by the strains such as anger and anxiety. The causes of deviant behavior can be linked to those emotions and the personal resources available to handle the emotions. This helps to define why some individuals with similar strains commit crimes and why others chose legal manners in which they deal with their strains and emotions.
Nathan Malbrue Charles Hauber Victimology CJUS280-1403A-01 7/18/2014 PH 2 DB Measuring Crime Victimization This paper will cover sources of reporting crime/arrest data and which I feel is best. Which method I think is accurate, significant challenges and overcoming them. The most important form of crime reporting data is from witnesses and victims. The most accurate data can be from a witness because they have nothing to gain from telling lies. The victim may lie in order to try and gain sympathy or favor.
Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.' Durkheim blames people not being fully integrated into society’s norms and values as to why they commit crime. So he said once people have served their time for their crime, they should be reintegrated. It’s a strength that Durkheim suggests them being reintegrated as it means they’re less likely to reoffend if they feel they belong to their society and do not look for status through crime. However, interactionists would say that agents of social control cause crime, not the society you are in.
Crime is defined as “an act prohibited and punished by law” (Collins, 2006) but there has been much debate about what ‘crime’ is. Harm, social agreement and official societal response are the three key elements of determining crime. A relationship exists between the three key concepts that would determine whether or not an act is a crime. If an action caused harm then society would be outraged and would create a law to punish those responsible and prohibit further acts occurring. From this emerged the consensus position on crime which states that crimes are acts that produce intense moral outrage amongst society (Muncie & McLaughlin, 2003).
England and France were amongst the first two countries to design penitentiaries in response to the growing criticism where extreme public violence as the means of a deterrence of a crime. Hence, the basis of a penitentiary was that it was the punishment within the detention itself and the “penitentiary ideal” itself was the extreme isolation of the criminals from society, their daily lives supervised extensively and physical labor was compulsive (Browne, 1995). So based on these penitentiary ideals, hardened criminals need to be separated from others to keep it safer, and give others the chance to reform and put back into society. Penitentiaries were established with a certain goal in mind. There were several reasons behind this.
A good term for this is called “Social Desirability Bias” which means that you reply in a manner that is socially acceptable and desirable. The main purpose of this study is to allow the participants to describe the crimes in their own words instead of implying from observing participants. Honesty in these self-report studies help many different groups to better understand crime and criminal behavior. They use these reports to gather information to put them into statistics. The reports that are used are collected from the NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) and NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) and published by FBI in their yearly UCR ( Uniform Crime Report.)
The main goals for indeterminate sentencing are the prevention of new crimes, rehabilitation, and to protect the criminals from excessive, unequal, or random punishments. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (1999), Indeterminate sentencing allows corrections managers to deal with problems of overcrowding or with changes in resource allocation by adjusting policies governing award of good time, setting of parole release dates, or releasing offenders on furloughs or to intermittent or partial confinement (p. 5). It is my opinion that indeterminate sentencing has the potential to change lawbreakers into law-abiding
During the sentencing phase there are four objectives that are considered such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. What is the purpose of these objectives and are they effective? The purpose of deterrence is to convince the public that committing crimes would result in certain punishments. The use of deterrence is implementing the use of harsher punishments that will deter those citizens whom are intending to commit a crime, will think twice before they do so. If criminals have to think about the potential consequences they may just deter away from the criminal act (Valerie Wright, 2010).
The legal view of criminal behaviour refers to an act that breaks the laws of the land and which is punishable under the current legislation and laws. Moral, meaning a behaviour which goes against the norms and values of society, and which deviate from the norms of religion too. This however is seen to be punishable by God. The social side sees the deviant behaviour as violating the values, beliefs and norms of the community. The psychological perspective sees criminal behaviour as a deviant action which causes hurt or discomfort to other people, whilst in exchange gaining a reward for themselves.