Rational choice theory (RCT) and situational crime prevention (SCP) are two different things, but they go hand-in-hand. The two articles discussed in this paper are surrounding this topic. The first article written by Hayward criticized RCT and SCP, while Farrell’s article countered Hayward. Farrell’s argument was more compelling than Hayward’s stating that RCT and SCP are the best theories to follow, although they do have room for improvement.
First let’s define what rational choice theory, and situational crime prevention is. Rational choice theory (RCT) is the theory that states that “humans are rational and have free will” and offenders make a decision to commit a crime considering the costs and benefits of that crime (Farrell and Hodgkinson, …show more content…
He bought up the point that cultural criminology was good, because expressive crime is the main focus of it. He mentioned that cultural criminology would be better to explain how to deal with the issues of alcohol and crime, along with other subjective experiences (Hayward, 2007). The problem with this approach was that it was not properly explained, as Farrell mentioned. In Farrell’s study we got to see some of the weaknesses of cultural criminology shown by Martin O’Brien, which also offset the positives of cultural criminology. Farrell also pointed out that in the midst of Hayward’s study, Hayward managed to expose some of the flaws of cultural criminology. Cultural criminology was not elaborated well by Hayward, and Farrell managed to show the weaknesses well in his study. For this reason, cultural criminology was not put into a positive light in this debate.
Overall, Farrell definitely managed to have a more persuasive, and compelling argument. He managed to make the reader aware of the flaws in Hayward’s study. By proving that Hayward did not have a great source of empirical data, for example in the case of binge drinking (Hayward, 2007, p. 58), Farrell’s counterargument seemed more appealing. Combined with the fact Hayward’s study seemed less researched made it a little less trustworthy. It seems to be that rational choice theory, and situational crime prevention are the best theories out there, although they do need some
First let’s define what rational choice theory, and situational crime prevention is. Rational choice theory (RCT) is the theory that states that “humans are rational and have free will” and offenders make a decision to commit a crime considering the costs and benefits of that crime (Farrell and Hodgkinson, …show more content…
He bought up the point that cultural criminology was good, because expressive crime is the main focus of it. He mentioned that cultural criminology would be better to explain how to deal with the issues of alcohol and crime, along with other subjective experiences (Hayward, 2007). The problem with this approach was that it was not properly explained, as Farrell mentioned. In Farrell’s study we got to see some of the weaknesses of cultural criminology shown by Martin O’Brien, which also offset the positives of cultural criminology. Farrell also pointed out that in the midst of Hayward’s study, Hayward managed to expose some of the flaws of cultural criminology. Cultural criminology was not elaborated well by Hayward, and Farrell managed to show the weaknesses well in his study. For this reason, cultural criminology was not put into a positive light in this debate.
Overall, Farrell definitely managed to have a more persuasive, and compelling argument. He managed to make the reader aware of the flaws in Hayward’s study. By proving that Hayward did not have a great source of empirical data, for example in the case of binge drinking (Hayward, 2007, p. 58), Farrell’s counterargument seemed more appealing. Combined with the fact Hayward’s study seemed less researched made it a little less trustworthy. It seems to be that rational choice theory, and situational crime prevention are the best theories out there, although they do need some