Register to read the introduction…
The goals can be financial, pleasure, or some other beneficial result. The Rational Choice Theory perspective as presented by Cornish and Clark (1985) is based upon three concepts; (one) criminal offenders are rational and make choices and decisions that benefit themselves; (two) a crime- specific focus is required; and (three) there is a distinction between choices related to criminal involvement and decisions related to criminal events. The theory of rational choice theory examines offender decision making and the factors that affect it such as assessments of risks, rewards, and morality of various behaviors (Clarke, 1983). The balance between likely risks and rewards influences offenders target selection (Clarke, 1983). According to Brantingham and Brantingham (1984), the level of risks is one of the factors that make a target good or bad. Offenders are thinking about themselves and how to advance their personal goals. Gul (2009) believes that the central points of the theory are described as
…show more content…
Both theories together provide a powerful tool for understanding predatory criminal behavior. They both assume that the offender in both theories makes choices based upon whether or not the timing and location is right and if the benefits will be worth it. When using both of these theories law enforcement has potential on figuring out why crimes occur, which locations are more targeted, and come up with crime preventives to stop or make it more difficult for offenders to follow through with attempting criminal behavior. Both of these theories also involve geography and crime mapping, when applying these theories it gives law enforcements a better idea on where crimes occur. Each of these two theories also involves an offender and victim. Crime is a similarity as well, without crime these theories wouldn’t exist. The offender in these theories also makes …show more content…
I would classify the Rational Choice Theory as premeditated crime; the criminal actually has a thought process of if they will commit a crime. A good example would be a homeless man late at night sleeping in a city alley, a deviant criminal walks by and sees the man and no one else around. You have the offender, the target, and no guardian so the criminal murders the homeless man. This was solely a crime of chance, because of all three necessary elements just happened to be in the same place at the same time. I would compare this to the Routine Activity Theory. Same situation of the homeless man in the Rational Choice Theory I would constitute a criminal of realizing a homeless man could be found sleeping in an alley and wanting to murder them and thinking through it; how to commit and how to get away with it. This becomes a crime of thought and calculation. Even though the factors still have to line up just like in the Routine Activity Theory; it is about the opportunity presenting itself as if it was
Both theories together provide a powerful tool for understanding predatory criminal behavior. They both assume that the offender in both theories makes choices based upon whether or not the timing and location is right and if the benefits will be worth it. When using both of these theories law enforcement has potential on figuring out why crimes occur, which locations are more targeted, and come up with crime preventives to stop or make it more difficult for offenders to follow through with attempting criminal behavior. Both of these theories also involve geography and crime mapping, when applying these theories it gives law enforcements a better idea on where crimes occur. Each of these two theories also involves an offender and victim. Crime is a similarity as well, without crime these theories wouldn’t exist. The offender in these theories also makes …show more content…
I would classify the Rational Choice Theory as premeditated crime; the criminal actually has a thought process of if they will commit a crime. A good example would be a homeless man late at night sleeping in a city alley, a deviant criminal walks by and sees the man and no one else around. You have the offender, the target, and no guardian so the criminal murders the homeless man. This was solely a crime of chance, because of all three necessary elements just happened to be in the same place at the same time. I would compare this to the Routine Activity Theory. Same situation of the homeless man in the Rational Choice Theory I would constitute a criminal of realizing a homeless man could be found sleeping in an alley and wanting to murder them and thinking through it; how to commit and how to get away with it. This becomes a crime of thought and calculation. Even though the factors still have to line up just like in the Routine Activity Theory; it is about the opportunity presenting itself as if it was