Mike Smith the defendant allegedly committed bodily harm against Jenna by body slamming her and throwing her to the ground. The question that has been raised is whether or not Mike’s actions are a direct representation of Rational Choice theory, and if they were not what theory would be reflect the actions by Mike. The standard of mens rea must be proven and we need to decide whether his actions were intentional or unintentional.
Rational Choice
Rational choice theory suggests that an individual makes a conscious choice to engage in activity. Whether the activity be criminal or non- criminal the overlying theory says the same thing, the conduct that an individual engages in is done so on their own free will and the individual is not forced or compelled to do so. Individuals choose …show more content…
Although Mike may lack the ability to make rational choices in a long-term situation because of his injury, I do not think that pertains to the situation at hand. Rational choice states that an individual weighs the costs vs. benefits of committing criminal activity, which Mike did not have time to do before committing the assault against Jenna. It was an impulsive decision, which he did not premeditate or plan out. There was no time to think about possible punishments, which may have deterred him from committing the act. Also in this situation there is really no benefit to committing the act, I am sure Mike did not want to harm Jenna. He did not become angry then pause the situation to think about whether or not he should commit the crime and definitely did not think about costs vs. benefits. The only instance in where rational choice would be an appropriate defense would be if indeed Mike had a cognitive disability and had become angry at Jenna maybe days before and then came back after time to ponder and weigh the outcomes of his decision to hurt Jenna, but that was not the case
Rational Choice
Rational choice theory suggests that an individual makes a conscious choice to engage in activity. Whether the activity be criminal or non- criminal the overlying theory says the same thing, the conduct that an individual engages in is done so on their own free will and the individual is not forced or compelled to do so. Individuals choose …show more content…
Although Mike may lack the ability to make rational choices in a long-term situation because of his injury, I do not think that pertains to the situation at hand. Rational choice states that an individual weighs the costs vs. benefits of committing criminal activity, which Mike did not have time to do before committing the assault against Jenna. It was an impulsive decision, which he did not premeditate or plan out. There was no time to think about possible punishments, which may have deterred him from committing the act. Also in this situation there is really no benefit to committing the act, I am sure Mike did not want to harm Jenna. He did not become angry then pause the situation to think about whether or not he should commit the crime and definitely did not think about costs vs. benefits. The only instance in where rational choice would be an appropriate defense would be if indeed Mike had a cognitive disability and had become angry at Jenna maybe days before and then came back after time to ponder and weigh the outcomes of his decision to hurt Jenna, but that was not the case