Introduction
Criminal theories seek to examine the reasons why people commit crime. This is significant as it helps to come up with ways through which to handle and prevent crime in the society. Over the past, several theories have emerged and the continuous efforts to explore them are clear evidence about the efforts that are being put in place to reduce crime. In achieving this, the theories are analyzed both as a combination and individually. Criminologists seek to find the best ways to reduce crime levels in the society. This paper seeks to describe all criminal theories in accordance with the University of Chicago. The paper will further compare these theories to today’s politics and give an opinion on the issue.
Rational choice theory
This theory stipulates that people’s actions are based on self-interest and arrive at decisions to commit a crime by analyzing the potential risks (Hagan et al. 2008). This theory is based on the classical criminology tenets. The freedom people have to choose their behavior gives them the chance to either do good or bad in the society. Choice of one’s behavior is motivated either by pursuit of happiness or the avoidance of pain. According to this theory, people choose their actions based on the ability of the option to produce pleasure, happiness and advantage. The perspective as to why people commit a specific crime is determined by personal choice. In essence, some people regard committing crime as being rewarding, satisfying, fun and rewarding. Because people are rational beings, their behavior is modified and controlled by fear of punishment. Because of this, there is a common believe that by intensifying the fear of punishment, people will be persuaded to desist from committing a crime. However, this theory requires sanctions to be limited to what is necessary to prevent people from committing a crime.
The rational choice theory is relevant to today’s politics. Because people are aware of the punishments they are likely to face if they commit particular offences, they tend to analyze the benefits vis-à-vis the punishments. Further, they get to understand their chances of escaping potential punishment through manipulating the legal process. This has promoted crime in the political arena as the exploitation of the law is the norm.
Routine Activities Theory
This is a subsidiary to the rational choice theory which was developed by Felson and Cohen. For this theory to apply, three elements must be present for a crime to occur. First, the motivated offender must have criminal intentions and the inclination to act on them. Second, there must be a suitable target or victim. Third, there must be an absence of a guardian to prevent the offence/crime from taking place. The routine activities theory stipulates that for a crime to occur, these elements ought to be present (Hagan et al. 2008).
This theory is crucial as it gives the macro-perspective about crime and gives a prediction on how economic and social changes influence the victimization and overall crime rate. According to Hagan, criminal activities are as a result of a structurally significant phenomenon (Hagan et al. 2008). This means that violations of the law are not as a result of trivial events or random. The activities people take as their routine on their day to day basis make some of them more susceptible and suitable targets to offenders. This theory seeks to relate offending pattern to the social interaction patterns. As such, the theory has it that crime is normal; it all depends on the opportunities available for one to offend another. When a target is unprotected and the rewards of the offence sufficient, the offender will be motivated to commit a crime.
The routine activities theory is related to the modern politics where the elected leaders exploit the electorate. This happens when the leaders fail to deliver services to the grass-root levels. At times, the politicians use their positions to embezzle funds and engage in corrupt activities. All this happens because of the availability of the elements of this theory. For instance, the electorate lacks a proper guardian to protect it from being exploited by the politicians.
Social disorganization theory
This theory argues that the social and physical environments of a person are responsible in determining their behavioral choices (Hagan et al. 2008). According to this theory, crime rates in a neighborhood depend on the ecological characteristics. This means that the place where one resides is influential in determining and shaping the characters they are likely to develop. The surrounding also shapes the likelihood of an individual to get involved in activities that are illegal. Residential location is not only significant in determining a person’s characteristics; it is also crucial in determining the vulnerability to get involved in illegal activities. A good advantage of this theory in practice is by looking at the youth from different neighborhoods. Those from disadvantaged neighborhoods have a high probability of participating in a subculture that approves delinquency. Because of this, they end up acquiring criminality because of such a cultural and social setting. This might not be the case with the youth from affluent neighborhoods where the law is obeyed. There are several arguments that a crime is a product of conditions that are unfavorable. In an attempt to explain this, the social disorganization theory links factors such as unemployment, high rate of school dropouts, single parenthood and deteriorating infrastructures to promoting crime in the society.
In practice, this theory explains the rate of crime in the modern society. Most criminals come from poor families because they lack the basics of life. The exposure they have to the difficulties of life also means that they are most likely to carry out activities that are criminal in nature in order to cater for their needs. This theory however fails to give an explanation as to why some crimes are committed by affluent people in the society, contrary to expectations.
Strain theory
This is another theory developed by the Chicago School. According to this theory, a society’s social structure plays a big role in pressuring one to commit a crime. People tend to have aspirations that are similar. However, they do not have similar abilities and opportunities to further these aspirations. Because of this, some people may fail to achieve the expectations of the society through means that are approved such as delayed gratification and hard-work. This results to using criminal activities to achieve success (Hagan et al. 2008).
The strain theory also stipulates that people experience value strain whenever they have social values that are conflicting and competing in their lives. When this is the case, people internalize their personal beliefs. This may motivate them to engage in illegal activities to meet beliefs. In the modern society, this theory is significant in determining the causation of crimes in the society. It has relevance to the politics of the day as it explains why most people commit crime.
Labeling theory
Perhaps, this is the most significant criminal theory related to the modern politics as it addresses the role that people in power play in furthering crime. According to this theory, people who are in power are entrusted with powers to determine acts that can be categorized as being crimes and the threshold used to label one as being a criminal (Hagan et al. 2008). Legislators are a representative of the electorate and despite the fact that they are few, they make decisions that are binding. This way, they may use this power to make laws that favor them. After one is labeled as being a criminal, the society confiscates their opportunities, denying them chances of being successful. With this lack of opportunities, people tend to lead a criminal behavior in order to survive. At times, this theory is associated with stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy. Self-identity and individual behavior play a significant role in defining this theory as they determine the fate an individual’s life will have. In modern practice, politicians have used this theory in promoting their interests at the expense of the electorate. They have devised rules and law that make it difficult for people to compete favorably with them.
The Chicago school played a significant role in interpreting crime and causation. Through the above theories, people have better chances of understanding the root causes of crimes. This is important as mechanisms to control and prevent crime can be predicted. When this is the case, the society will be a peaceful place for all to live without fear.
Works Cited
Hagan, Frank E.. Introduction to criminology: theories, methods, and criminal behavior. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2008. Print.
