This paper takes a detailed discussion on the rationale choice theory. The discussion will begin with a brief review of the literature review, and then examine the relevance or applicability of the theory. In the conclusion part the paper will try to look at the application of a different theory besides the rationale choice theory.
The rationale choice theory depends on the essential doctrines of classical criminology. It provides that people normally make a free choice of their behavior and that they are guided by the desire to avoid pain and seek for pleasure. People assess their selection of action in relation to the possibility of being advantageous or happy. The rationale choice theory gives a general basis as to why particular offenders commit given crimes. It provides that people decide to participate in crime probably due to its benefits, maybe it is cheap, or even it is fun. The main idea in this theory is the human beings are cogent beings whose character can easily be changed and controlled by fear for punishment. Therefore, criminals can be convinced to stay away from committing crimes by increasing their fear of crime. This means when setting the standard of punishment in relation to this theory sanctions should be limited to scaring people from committing crime (Siegel and McCormick, 2006).
The rational choice theory was found by Clarke and Harris (Clarke and Harris, 1992), where the observation is that auto thieves are particular when choosing their targets. For example when choosing the kind of car to still, it depends on the use of the particular car. This means that their decision in relation to the target takes reasonable influence. It is also observed that female offenders select whom to importune, and what kind of risks associated with the target (Mather, 1996).
However, on the other hand, the rational choice theory has some limitation. For instance, the doctrines of this theory depend on various assumptions in as far as the decision- making process is concerned. Researchers assume that human beings engage in crime after proper consideration of the advantages and costs of a particular. The theory claims that this involves personal factors like money and having fun among others. But then ignore the other factors that cause crimes like the environment, political instability, individual state of mind, and influence of drugs among others. The theory is therefore unrealistic and therefore not applicable in society.
Besides the rational choice theory a different approach that would be Routine Activities Theory, which is closely related to the rational choice theory. This has a taste of three ingredients that must be present for a crime to be committee. The first is, the victim or target must be established, there must also be an absence of a probable preventer of the crime and lastly there must be criminal intentions. These three ingredients must be present a particular period for a crime to happen.
In conclusion, if I were appointed by the governor of Nevada to reduce crime rate in the area I would not opt for the less plea bargain with the options at hand. The rational choice theory is important and relevant because it is applicable to any society thought with a challenge to a greater extent it is applicable. In case, one is not comfortable with rational choice theory there is an alternative of Routine Activities Theory.
References
Siegal, L and C. McCormick. (2006). Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (3rd ed.). Toronto: Thompson, Nelson
Maher, L. (1996). Hidden in the light: Occupational norms among crack-using street level sex workers. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 143−173.
