Rational Deterrence Theory

Rational and Deterrence Theory When I was little my mom never let me have dessert until I finished my dinner. I recall a time my mother walked out of the kitchen, I thought about the consequences and what would happen if my mom found out; “would she spank me, or put me in time out,” ran through my head. But because of the fact that she was in a different part of the house I took my chance, and I took a bite of my dessert anyways. It was clear that if my mom had never left the room to begin with, I would have never had the courage to sneak a bite of the dessert because it would be too risky. At a young age I had no idea that I was displaying rational choice theory, along with deterrence theory. My purpose of this essay is to explain what both …show more content…
For example, someone may choose to rob an individual on the street at night because it minimizes their chances of being caught or seen. It is certain that before the offender performed this act he/she thought about the risks versus the rewards and that is why they chose to rob at night when it is dark and a lot of people are in there homes. On the contrary, instead of just focusing on people committing a criminal act, rational choice puts emphasis on why people are performing these acts; known as the rational choice literature. It looks at how people reach their decisions, as well as interpreting event and involvement decisions. Event decisions regard the preparation, selecting a target, aftermath of the crime and etc. As far as involvement, it puts emphasis on the initiation, habitation and resistance of the crime. In regards to theorists, Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clark’s rational choice theory perspective; conditions are needed for specific crimes to happen, instead of the involvement people have within these crimes. Also, offenders will take in mind other assets, not just rewards when it comes to committing a crime. For …show more content…
I feel this way because by us being human beings we all want rewards and greater things in life. By the fact of rational choice being solemnly based on rewards outweighing the risks makes so much sense to me. According to Gary S. Becker offenders are like consumers, a consumer is in charge of how they spend their money and they base it off of benefits as well. Moreover, an individual is more likely to do something they probably should not be doing if they truly believe they will get away with it and so on. But if they feel the risks are higher than the rewards and there is a huge chance of them getting caught, they are less likely to commit the act. Rational choice actually involves the individual thinking about the risks and rewards that he/she may receive after committing the crime, but deterrence does not. Deterrence does not really make sense to me because I believe if an individual got caught and went to prison that he/she will not commit the same crime again due to the fact they have faced legal punishment, but it is the complete opposite. In fact, they are more than likely going to go back or commit another crime. Deterrence theory seems to not have a lot of answers as to why the individual committed the crime again when they knew what their punishment would be, evidentially deterrence just does not work. On the other hand, rational choice theory answers so many other question following why the