Chapter three mainly focuses in on how to deter individuals from committing crimes. I see it as individuals can commit crimes as much as they choose to, but are they willing to deter themselves from those crimes? Some may be willing to change their ways, but for others, it gives them the adrenaline to continue this process. The next thought that comes to my mind is: What benefits are coming to an individual who constantly commits crimes? What I can see happening to the individual is that they will get in trouble for the crime they have committed and start to think if what they did was actually right or wrong to them.
Rational choice theory is something that I have learned in much detail from a previous class. According to the book, it states, “Rational choice theory is a perspective that criminologists adapted from economists, who used it to explain a variety of individuals decisions regarding a variety of behaviors”(Tibbetts). One person that could relate to this
…show more content…
theory is my second oldest brother. As I have stated many of times, my brother would be a good example for this theory. There was a situation where my brother thought that he was going to take his friends to the basketball game, but they had different plans instead. As it turns out, they were trying to go and rob someone house, but my brother was unaware of everything. Once the police officers came to get the story, none of them would talk at all. In the end, my brother was charged with conspiracy. I would say the rational choice theory comes into the picture because it was his decision to stick up for his friends instead of trying to get himself out of the situation. Since this occurred, my brother makes better decisions on certain situation because he knows what could be the consequences for him. On the other hand, there is another theory that I have came to learn about. The book says, “Routine activities theory assume a rational decision-making offender” (Tibbetts). The main reason that the routine activities theory could work is the fact of targets. For example, when my my family and I tend to leave for a trip on the weekend; there is no one home, except for my dog. My dog is the overseer of the house just in case someone happens to break in. He has good ears on everything he hears, so the burglar would have the privilege of coming across him if they attempt to break in my home. If all else fails, it would not hurt to acquire something that would make noise in your home, so the burglar won't have the chance to take anything. Something that sparked my attention throughout this chapter was the three strike policy.
The statement I could agree on is: “Offenders who are in prison for the rest of their lives cannot commit more crimes on the streets” (Tibbetts). The only thing that I would have an opinion about is would the three strike policy work for everyone? I can understand that if an offender is in prison then they wouldn't commit any crimes on the streets, but would the three strike policy still occur if they were to commit a crime while in prison? There are a few people that I know who has been to prison and committed crimes while being there. For example, they would do some harm to an officer or another prisoner. If the offender has two strikes as it is, what would really count as their third strike? The reason I state this question is because the streets may be the worse place for offenders, but prison does not make it any better. Even though every state has different laws; it could possibly change in the long
run. In conclusion, it is hard for some people to let go of committing crimes. It really would not be so hard for them to change, that's only if they want to take that risk. The way I see it is that if individuals commit a crime on a regular basis, then it is only going to go downhill from there. Once this occurs, they would have to learn the hard way when they can't see the opportunities of something good happen to them because they are always doing the wrong thing. Overall, from reading this chapter, it allows you to see how individuals take into consideration of what their consequences could be, but in all reality, it all depends on what they decide to do.
The chance of reform is completely removed. Mimi Silbert, president of the Delancey Street Foundation, a half- way home for prisoners, tells the story of Albert who was sent to San Quentin Prison at age 19; by then he had committed 27 armed robberies. Under three-strikes-and-you're-out, he would still be in prison. Released at age 36, he is a caring father, works as a plumber and a substitute teacher, and has led a drug-free, crime-free life. A three-strikes law would deny this chance to Albert and to many others like him. Felons are capable of reform, but this law would deny them that chance.(Silbert)
Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational Choice theory, criminal control policy, and criminology relevance. Policy essay, 43-52.
...e data I gathered from both sides of the argument, I have come to a conclusion on whether the law is just. Personally, I feel these laws are not as harsh as some people have made them out to be. We must tackle criminals of any kind to maintain a good society. How can we have this good society if habitual offenders keep polluting it? Deterrence seems positively correlated with the facts I presented in the argument that supported the Three Strikes law. Crime went down with the implementation of these laws. My overall thoughts are that if a person cannot grow and learn from their mistakes to become better individuals, then they must be taken off our streets. Criminals are just that C R I M I N A L S. Certain crimes serve as stepping stones to more violent crimes. The threat of these long sentences may stop a second time offender from committing their third offense. This law can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to these potential repeat offenders.
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
The driving force behind "three-strikes" legislation in Washington, were politicians wanting to "get tough on crime". The reasoning behind the law was to reduce recidivism and get violent offenders off the street. I think that the legislation was merely a response to public outcry rather than a well thought out strategy to actually reduce crime. Advocates say that after "three-strikes" laws were adopted across the country there was a drastic reduction in crime in general. They also argue that once a person has committed a his second "strike" and knows that he faces a life sentence if convicted again will think twice before committing another crime. These arguments are fallacies. Finally what supporters fail to point out is that these three-strike laws target minorities over whites in a severely disproportionate amount.
Some unusual scenarios have come about due to these laws, particularly in California; some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life for such petty crimes as shoplifting golf clubs or stealing a slice of pizza from a child on the beach or a double sentence of 50 years to life for stealing nine video tapes from two different stores while child molesters, rapists and murderers serve only a few years. As a result of some of these scenarios the three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well (Campbell). Many questions have now arisen concerning the “three strikes” laws such as alternatives to incarceration for non-heinous crimes, what would happen if the state got rid of “strikes” and guaranteed that those convicted of a serious crime serve their full sentence? It is imperative to compare the benefits and the costs and the alternatives to incarceration when de...
Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs by Samuel Walker Samuel Walker, author of Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, presented us in his book with forty-eight propositions that dealt with crime, drugs, and our efforts toward getting rid of these problems. A few of these propositions informed us on positive actions taking place in our criminal justice system, but the majority of them told us what was not working to fight crime and drugs. One of those propositions that was a negative aspect of our justice system today in Mr. Walker's eyes was the "three strikes and you're out" laws (referred to here after as three strikes laws). He gives numerous reasons why this law is not considered to be an effective one. This paper will first explain Walker's view on the issue and then review some of the current research and opinions on the matter.
The three-strikes law is defined as “judges sentence offenders with three felony convictions (in some states two or four convictions) to long prison terms, sometimes to life without parole (Cole 2014). The purpose of the three strikes law includes is incapacitation and deterrence (Cole 2014). The purpose of a sentencing and the goals of punishment ideally are meant to correspond to each other. The goals of punishment include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative punishment (Cole 2014). Deterrence is broken down into either specific or general deterrence. General deterrence is defined as punishment of criminals that is intended to be an example to the general public and to discourage the commission of offenses”. Specific deterrence is defined as “punishment inflicted on criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes”. Lastly, incapacitation is defined as “depriving an offender of the ability to commit crimes against society, usually by detaining the offender in prison” (Cole 2014). Two empirical articles research the effectiveness of the three strikes law on crime trends, the impact the law has on population prisons, effect on a prisons budget,
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
Starting in 1993, over half the states and the federal government enacted some form of “three strike and you’re out” legislation, also sometimes called the “habitual offender law” (Marion and Oliver, p.350). 2012). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' The state of Washington was the first to implement the three strike law; the state of California soon followed with a broader version of the law. The three strike law made mandatory that those offenders who have been convicted three times for serious crimes be sentenced to life in prison. Even though adopted versions of the law vary among states, some states reduce judicial discretion while some states allow some judicial discretion. For example, the state of California requires twenty-five years to life in prison for any individual who has been convicted of any felony following two prior convictions for serious crimes.
Rational Choice Theory - Rational choice theory, as defined by the textbook, is "A perspective on crime causation that holds that criminality is the result of conscious choice. Rational choice theory predicts that individuals will choose to commit crime when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs of disobeying the law" (Schmalleger 76). It is an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the greatest benefits or satisfaction and that are in their highest self-interest. It should also be noted that most mainstream economic assumptions and theories are based on rational choice theory. According to the lawdictionary.org, rational choice theory "attempts to explain social phenomenon in terms of how self-interested individuals make choices under the influence of their preferences. All parties try to maximize their advantage, and to minimize their disadvantages" (lawdictionary.org). An example of rational choice theory would be a person stealing money from a company that they work for, with the intent of having the benefit of getting rich at no cost. The person believes that he or she will not get caught, thus not having to pay any costs, making it a rational decision or choice in their
There are numerous theories as to why a crime is committed. Rational choice theory, which is a subset of classical theory, says that before people commit a crime they think about what they are going to do. They weigh the pros and cons before committing the criminal act. The rational choice theory is well suited for the causation of burglary. The support for this theory is that burglars do not commit crime for the fun of it or just because they want to. It is usually because they need money to keep their heads above water. In their situation, they do not see any other way than to steal to make a living. The opposition for rational choice theory is that criminals do not think before they act as they may be incapable of thinking rationally in the first place.
White-collar crime is the financially motivated illegal acts that are committed by the middle and upper class through their legitimate business or government activities. This form of crime was first coined by Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” (Linden, 2016). Crime has often been associated with the lower class due to economic reasons. However, Sutherland stressed that the Criminal Justice System needed to acknowledge illegal business activity as crime due to the repercussions they caused and the damage they can cause to society (Linden, 2016). Crime was prevalently thought to only be
When criminals think that the benefit of committing the crime will outweigh the cost if they get caught, they make a choice to commit the crime. There are two varieties of rational choice theory. One, situational choice theory, which is an extension of rational choice theory and two, routine activities theory or RAT, which states that the daily routine or patterns in ones’ activities make it much easier for an individual to become a victim of crime. The theory is, crime is more likely to happen when a criminal and their victim come together in the absence of authority (Schmalleger). A situation made easier to come by when the criminal knows the victim’s daily routines or patterns.
Early criminologists, of the late 18th century, believed that everyone had the ability to make rational choices. Therefore, their theory was that if a rational