Law & Crime

Traditionally criminology was based on choice and freedom, while seeing crime as the obvious actions of uncontrolled human desires. A general theory of crime asserts that criminal acts will be predominantly but not always committed by those who have low self-control and those who want instant gratification. Crime appeals to people who are impulsive, shortsighted, risk takers and non-verbal. They have low self-control, use illicit drugs, and are involved with criminal acts. Parents who do not care, do not supervise and do not punish will raise children with low self-control. Low self-control is key to criminality and this behaviour explains why some people engage in criminal acts and others do not.

Property offences are a problem faced by many individuals – the need or desire for money. View of theft as a rational and productive activity is natural to those who have a desire for money, despite the fact that capture, imprisonment and death may be a part of the equation. The utility model is based on the assumption that offenders rationality attempt to maximize the monetary and psychic rewards of crime. The rational choice theory suggests that criminal decision-making is characterized by a very rudimentary cost benefit analysis. The stated theory analyzes the decision making process as it relates to the various stages of criminal involvement including motivation. This theory is best applied to instrumental versus expressive behaviour; it recognizes situational variables such as modus operandis, weapons and getaways. The way in which people combine their desires and beliefs to make decisions to offend still ceases to amaze many. This theory clearly depicts that the possibility of making money is most people’s motivation.  Rational choice theory portrays criminal behaviour as the outcome of choices and assumes that decisions made by offenders exhibit limited or bounded rationality. The experiences in crime transcribed in the book Behind the Bars are cases that exhibit characteristics of   Clarke and Cornish’s rational choice theory and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime.

When analyzing different cases from the book Behind the Bars it is evident that the rational choice theory and the general theory of crime are applicable to the case The Reluctant Robbers. It is the case about a young offender who is doing time for armed robbery. The rational choice theory and general theory of crime are both apparent in this case as the robber and his brother were both involved in an instrumental crime and acted upon impulse, which is a direct factor of low self-control. The instrumental crime is clear as they spent hundreds of dollars at the bar every night and enjoyed the feeling of spending money just to show off. They were greedy as their need for money kept rising and they would act on impulse by making hasty decisions to rob and had little self-control, as they could not stop committing the criminal acts. The Reluctant Robbers say that “My parents have been split up since I was five…My real mom is two faced, she will write a letter and say she is coming down to see me and she won’t come. She plays head games (p. 71)” this relates to the general theory of crime as it shows poor family life. Poor family life is a direct cause of low-self control and creates a key characteristic of an offender through the perspective of the general theory of crime as it emphasizes that parents who do not care will raise children with low self-control. Low self-control is key to criminality and the poor family life explains the offender’s behaviour and why he engaged in criminal activity.

The brothers would be desperate for the money causing them to drink before a robbery so that they were able to gain the courage to ahead with committing it. While recapping the robberies the robber says “the gun was loaded, but I never wanted to hurt anybody (p. 70)” shows that this was not an expressive crime and that he is caring and not violent. They acted and made decisions rationally as they would take precaution to avoid harm “We stole this car and slept in the apartment all night and never drank anything or nothing …We didn’t want someone getting killed –us or anybody (p.72)”. This supports the rational choice theory as it shows the robbers were rational in their need and desire for money as it was based solely on the lifestyle they wanted to live, and had nothing to do with hurting anybody or getting revenge.  

Additionally, this case portrays the rational choice theory that adopts a utilitarian belief, which is illustrated in the offender’s behaviour as he continues to commit the crime, as he knows there is a desirable gain. They act in a way that is designed to make them money, while making logical decisions about their situational variables such as modus operandi, weapons and getaways. In this specific case the modus operandi stayed the same and so did their choice to not use loaded weapons. “We didn’t want someone getting killed –us or anybody (p.72)”.  The method designed by Clarke and Cornish is evident throughout this whole case and shows that the crime committed is a result of the offenders behaviour and decisions designed to meet his or her needs of money, status and excitement.

Furthermore in the case The Honest Crime the rational choice theory is clearly applicable as rational decisions and the need and desire for money are prominent. The rational choice theory depicts criminals to be reasonable and conscious of their decisions like in this case “if I didn’t do the robberies I wouldn’t have been caught (p. 125)”. The rational choice theory also depicts criminals, as those who are feel powerful, courageous, and logical about their decisions. The offender feels a sense of logic and ration behind his or her reasoning to commit the crime. The offender justifies the act by thinking it out practically and this causes offenders to commit crimes – as they believe they have made rational decisions and warranted their reasons.  This case portrays these characteristics clearly as the offender says “the third time it was down to, I need money it was no longer whether I could do it because I knew I could”.