Compare And Contrast The Neo-Classical School Of Criminology
The new school of thought now considered the state of mind of the offender. The Neo-Classical school of criminology considered if the offender was mentally ill, a minor and or insane/incompetent would be considered in determining the offenders state of mind (Taylor, et al., 2003). Evaluating the circumstances of the criminals’ mindset were used in confidence to reduce complete responsibility. The state of mind for each criminal made the courts consider how punishment should be applied. Moreover, courts were now encouraged to treat irrational offenders leniently. The motive for this was that these offenders were incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong (Taylor, et al., 2003). Irrational offenders were perceived as individuals that lacked normal intelligence. The Neo-Classical approach outlined the need of psychological treatments. The reformed school encouraged the legal justice system to evaluate the state of mind of criminals which involved the use of psychologists. The school of thought acknowledged crime was out of the control for selected offenders’. The theory encouraged the state to acknowledge the offenders past …show more content…
Rational choice theory best explains why crime occurs. Hayward (2007) explains that this theory considers offenders to be rational individuals that plan their crimes. Offenders take into consideration the pain and pleasure he or she may have to deal with. The offender evaluates the risks before he or she decides to break the law.
There are many factors taken into consideration when individuals commit crimes such as, the punishment one would receive, the success they would receive and who it would benefit. Crime is broken for personal reasons, it is a cost benefit analysis (Hayward, 2007). The offender determines the advantage of criminal behaviour. Rational choice theory assumes that an individual is egotistic (Boudon, 2003). It is perceived that an individual who commits an unlawful act is mainly concerned with only themselves. When considering the current news story selected I argue that the 32-year-old man who decided it was okay to rape a 10-month-old infant was rational and aware of his