Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory

judicious pick and Deterrence TheorySince Marchese Beccaria who, as unrivaled of the first menti angiotensin converting enzymed that the real purpose of punishment is is no other than to clog the vile from doing further injury to society, and prevent others from committing the like offense (Baccaria 1764), several(prenominal)(prenominal) researchers as well as general community have begun to concenter on the notion of somebodyal choice when explaining what pushes offenders to commit horrors. keen-sighted pickax Theory became one of the or so popular impressions which reserve the deterrence philosophy. Although, the tie beam between those two theories was welcomed by more, it in any case had its critiques and opponents. In this paper, I provide explain how and to what degree, sensible choice Theory supports the image of deterrence. I leave alone also discuss roughly of the contradictory theories and criminal behaviors that do not support Rational prime(prenom inal) Theory and state my opinion on consequences that this study may embrace on flagitious idea concept which is, according to the criminal fairness, one of the necessary elements of the aversion.The concept of Rational filling Theory is rooted in the analysis of tender behavior that was completed by Italian scholar named Marchese Beccaria. The main point of his examination describes the human being as a rational number put to workor who calculates rationality development ends and means assortmentula. concord to Beccaria People (freely) choose all behavior, twain conform and deviate, based on their rational calculations, the central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis Pleasure versus Pain, (Beccaria 1764). In his line of reasoning, Beccaria set(p) that in night club to prevent the criminal or wrongdoing behavior, the form of punishment equivalent to the severity of evil committed should be implemented. The concept of punishing criminals in a ccordance to the crime they have committed in order not only to prevent the criminal from committing the similar act in the future(special deterrence), but also to warn the general open of the thinkable consequences of such(prenominal) behavior(general deterrence), became known as Deterrence Theory. In todays world of criminal honourableice, it is calm down seen as one of the most important aspect in the whole idea of punishment.Due to the failure of rehabilitative theories and major step-up in crime rates in 1970s and 1980s, the concept of free, rational choice, based on the calculation of cost and benefits began to interest criminologist and researchers across the country. examen of illegal decision making lick began to be perceived as the key to down the stairsstanding the real purpose of crime and what motivates it. During those years, Modern Rational Choice Theory emerged. Contemporary criminologist began to rely on the idea which claimed that brat of punishment guide s to deter the somebody from wrongdoing just as rewards tend to encourage pleasing behavior. Beca social occasion of this new trend of thinking, more laws that improverd authorisation sentences for numerous crimes, mainly those drug-related have been passed and executed. Did wide utilisation of deterrence as the tool of discouraging pile from committing crimes accomplished its initial goal? The dish protrude is double sided. Violent crime rates began to indeed, drop in mid-1990s as well as did drug offences. It was however, also due to changes in many other aspects like increase police recruitment across the country, good enough economic prosperity that discourages criminal behavior as well as change in noeticity of people that had been subjects to violent behaviors. On the veto side, because of the fact that needed sentences for non-violent, drug related offences were increased significantly, the prison creation also augmented significantly burdening the pockets of taxp ayers. As this happened, more and more researchers began to strike hard the method of punishment supported by Rational Choice Theory.Does disquietude of serious punishment truly discourage criminals from committing crimes? Wasnt it only the philosophy of Rational Choice Theory of punishment that put the concept of deterrence in such an advantaged position in our criminal justice system and which steady has such a massive impact on current crime control policy? Without any doubt, the strong data links between these two makes both theories stand out and wait actually balanced and reasonable. However, as the foiling caused by some of the negative effects of their usage increased, contradictory theories began to emerge. Moreover, some criminal behaviors such as rapes and even in some cases, send offs seem not to be positively unnatural by increased punishment as the form of deterrence for these crimes.Rational Choice Theory differs from many other criminal theories mainly bec ause of its main principal that defines crime as a solely individual choice. The concept does not focus on other, crucial factors like individual traits, criminal associations and midland strains that may also play a huge usage in pushing an individual to committing certain crimes. One of the most known models that oppose the Rational Choice Theory is Classical Theory introduced by Clarke and Cornish. Both authors agree that, dapple committing the crime, people are not perfectly rational and in some cases they are completely unreasonable. Moreover, they touch upon the costs and benefits of crime very broadly speaking including only official and unperturbed permissions. According to their views, A range of factors model and individuals estimates of costs and benefits of crime self-control, moral beliefs, strains, emotional state, association with delinquent peers.(Clarke and Cornish, 1986). In addition, many researchers have also found that the severity of punishment is furthe st less important for potential criminal as oppose to deduction of that punishment. Some extreme opponents of Rational Choice Theory even bank that, People are not unremarkably aware of certainty and severity of punishment for the area in which they live, therefore increasing certainty of punishment may reduce crime, but the effect volition be transeunt and localized.(Class PPT). This opinion creates another argument which indeed questions and doubts the entire purpose of severe punishment as a successful method of deterrence and it is sound to a large extent. Besides the theoretical aspects that oppose the Rational Choice Theory, there are many practical ones that are against it as well.According to numerous scholars, individuals are much less apt(predicate) to be affected by initial benefits of certain crime when they are intoxicated or mentally disturbed. Many people that commit crime are very low in self-control and very much perceive the crime as simply not wrong. These individual however, are more seeming to be discouraged from doing something illegal by the threat of punishment. Another study mention that, the more severe the punishment is for a certain crime, the less likely it is for jury to execute a specific sentence therefore it seems that as severity of the crime increases, certainty of harsh sentence decreases. If one would insufficiency to push the rational choice model to its extent, he or she may even argue that more severe and direct the punishment for the crime is in combination with negative experiences with law enforcement may actually increase the likelihood of subsequent crime.In todays world, where the access to illegal substances and alcohol is silence fairly easy and domestic violent rates are still high, one could assume, without a big doubt, that offenders often commit crimes on an impulse, speckle intoxicated or under some emotional or mental pressure caused by, for example bad financial situation or difficult, inner f amily condition. What many call crime overload is certainly another problem. As crime rates increase, police forces are strained and the certainty of come-at-able arrest decreases. As crime rates decline, police activity usually strengthens and certainty of arrest increases. The fundamental apparatus is what should be examined here. Does certainty of possible arrest daunts individual from committing a crime or does the small direct of crime increase certainty?According to researchers like Marcus Felson, Stephan Pfohl and Alan Liska, some crimes and deviant behaviors, especially those considered large(p) offences like clear up or rape with additional bodily harm are not affected by more severe punishment. The above mentioned scholars argue that capital punishment shows that anticipated, overall confirmation effect may not be inclose. As Pfohl claims, There appears to be little, if any, difference in rates of capital offenses between states which impose the expiry penalty and those that do not. In fact, an inverse correlation has been documented when states supplant the wipeout penalty a corresponding drop in capital crimes is reported (Pfohl, , 1994). Finally, issue regarding the effectiveness of deterrent policies and particularly the suitability of incapacitation and penalize bring up moral and official worries. How far do we really want to go in punishing criminals? Is incapacitation the most concrete use of common capitals? Looking at the widespread understanding among criminologists that considers aging out as one of the most important elements of crime process, increasing mandatory sentences for all crimes that are believed to have been committed by perfectly rational individuals who have accurately weighted out all the costs and benefits of the crime they wished to commit, the incapacitation alone seems merely impractical. Without proper rehabilitation these individuals are very likely to commit these crimes again in the future.Great example of the modern use of punishment in accordance with Rational Choice Theory is present in the files from Atkins vs. Virginia Court Case that took place in the year 2000. disrespect the fact that Atkins was diagnosed as mildly-retarded with a full IQ of 59, he was sentenced to death for committing crimes of armed robbery and murder. The case was particularly controversial because many believed that under 8th amendment which prohibits Cruel Punishment, Atkins shouldnt be sentenced to death but rather to farsighted imprisonment. After the verdict was released, many scholars, lawyers and policy makers began to ask themselves what is the real role of 8th amendment after all? It seemed as in our country, pressure of public opinion and swiftness of prosecutors may push some cases above the coercive law of our land.I believe that the criminal research that evaluates the deterrence with the connection to the Rational Choice Theory may hold many consequences for one of the most important and valued standards in criminal law-mens rea, or in other words guilty mind. The main concept of guilty mind standard requires that a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless that person intended to commit that crime. Unfortunately, when looking at the case described above, I am wretched to admit that mens rea isnt always executed and respected. The study assessed in this paper, proves that a big portion of all crimes is committed by individuals that arent fully aware of their actions, as in the case when they are intoxicated or under tremendous mental strain. Moreover, many mentally disturbed and/or retarded criminals, even though conscious about the fact that they are taking part in criminal act, are often influenced by others who are often brains of entire process of wrongdoing. Atkins involvement in the murder for which he was sentenced to death is a great example of such situation.The flyer of someones guilt is perhaps the most important factor in determine the appropriate sentence for crime that has been committed. How do we nib someones guilt? It is the indorsement that the principal of mens rea comes into play. Mens rea represents the amount of intend that an individual had while committing his offence. If we took Rational Choice Theory and traditional Mens rea concept and combine them together, we would get one of the most sophisticated and perfectly formulated theories that deal with understanding of criminal behavior. It could be written as follows, Since the criminal is a perfectly rational human being who, while committing the crime is fully aware of what he/she is doing and decides that benefits that will come from the crime outweigh the costs associated with punishment for this crime, than this person is guilty without the smallest doubt, intend is 100% in all the cases. As much as I would wish this theory was correct, it only reflects a utopian inhalation in which all crimes and consequential punishments for them are perfectly clear and comprehensible. earthly concern however, is totally different and much more complex. To understand the importance of theories such as Rational Choice Theory one must often think outside the box. While the theory itself is quiet practical and compelling, without taking into consideration other aspects of crime and criminal behavior mentioned earlier in this paper, it becomes completely useless and invalid.It is because of the principal of mens rea that we need so many people in our courtrooms today, beginning with prosecutors, judges and jury, ending with psychologist, forensic scientists and psychiatrists in order to solve cases, especially those that involve murder. It is often very difficult to measure someones guilt and intend to commit such offence as murder looking solely on the crime itself and basing the explanation for it on Rational Choice Theory. Concurring with other critiques of the Rational Choice Theory I believe that the theory alone is quite misleading and all thos e who support it fully should consider studying it with comparison to mens rea or compare it to other counter theories like Classical Theory. If we want to respect principals of our criminal law which mens rea is a great example of, we should definitely stop the ongoing process of generalization and simplification of our legal norms and standards and apply and more ethical and just standards of practicing law in our courtrooms.