Whitney Heichel left for work early on October 16, 2012. She said goodbye to her husband with a kiss not knowing it would be the last time she is seen. She worked as a Starbucks barista and her shift started at 7 am. At 8 am her manager called her husband telling him she did not show up for work. As soon as he was off the phone he knew something was wrong. He tried calling and texting her for the next two hours. He finally called the police at 10 am. As soon as the police arrived so did many community volunteers. They started search parties to find any evidence to help find Whitney. It would be four days before the police would find Whitney’s body on Larch Mountain, a 40 minute drive from her home up curvy roads and across county lines. During
…show more content…
It has come a long way, the cost-benefit calculus still is central but it now has a better view on the complexity of the nature of criminal behavior. Traditionally scholars knew that individual outlooks of the relative costs and benefits of engaging in criminal behavior, are a consequence of many individual and/or contextual factors. A major addition to the theory was added by scholars. It discovered the conditions which sanctions may be useful in eliminating criminal behavior. Sanctions have worked best when the goals are modest. Academics like how complex the rational choice theory is in its contemporary form, as for policy makers they do not. The crime problem in the US is a consequence of the easy going criminal justice system. Policy makers have begun to use policies that strengthen punishment for more crimes and criminals. Policy makers use rational choice theory to argue who is stronger then who for when it comes to crime. The research shows that the lacking of a crime control benefits from just writing stricter laws. One fundamental policy of rational choice theory is, stricter punishments will keep others from committing crimes. When rational choice is used to help crime control policies, there is a problem knowing if it is effective. Criminologists have not been for the rational choice movement in criminal justice since the late 1960s. Research has shown that some of the rational choice policies have basically no impact on crime rates. Policy makers do not recognize the research, and they have even caused influential criminologists to leave policy debates completely, because they are afraid of their proposal derided and dismissed. It is possible for research to influence criminal justice policy. Political pundits have listened to some criminologists who support the implement of tougher policies and disapprove of progressive crime control traditionally
It has come a long way, the cost-benefit calculus still is central but it now has a better view on the complexity of the nature of criminal behavior. Traditionally scholars knew that individual outlooks of the relative costs and benefits of engaging in criminal behavior, are a consequence of many individual and/or contextual factors. A major addition to the theory was added by scholars. It discovered the conditions which sanctions may be useful in eliminating criminal behavior. Sanctions have worked best when the goals are modest. Academics like how complex the rational choice theory is in its contemporary form, as for policy makers they do not. The crime problem in the US is a consequence of the easy going criminal justice system. Policy makers have begun to use policies that strengthen punishment for more crimes and criminals. Policy makers use rational choice theory to argue who is stronger then who for when it comes to crime. The research shows that the lacking of a crime control benefits from just writing stricter laws. One fundamental policy of rational choice theory is, stricter punishments will keep others from committing crimes. When rational choice is used to help crime control policies, there is a problem knowing if it is effective. Criminologists have not been for the rational choice movement in criminal justice since the late 1960s. Research has shown that some of the rational choice policies have basically no impact on crime rates. Policy makers do not recognize the research, and they have even caused influential criminologists to leave policy debates completely, because they are afraid of their proposal derided and dismissed. It is possible for research to influence criminal justice policy. Political pundits have listened to some criminologists who support the implement of tougher policies and disapprove of progressive crime control traditionally