Trait Theory versus Rational Choice Theory - Coursework Example

Comparing and Contrasting Criminology Theories: Trait Theory versus Rational Choice Theory Due Introduction Crimes of all different kinds occur every minute of everyday all over the world. There are petty crimes happening even as we speak and, more disturbing, there are people being assaulted, abused and murdered in the length of time it takes to finish reading this sentence. In those terms it is disturbing how many different sorts of crimes that mankind commits against its own people and society is actually rather astounding. Some people commit dishonest, unethical and criminal behaviors without a second thought, while others would never consider such an act. Why? What makes them different? Criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, and researches have all sought to discover why human beings commit crimes. Over the years a number of different theories have been established each one hoping to explain the human mentality of crime. Two of these theories are very worth delving deeper into, Trait Theory and Rational Choice Theory. These two perspectives are, essentially, antithetical of one another; however, both offer profound explanations of the human experiences in relation to criminal behaviors and activity. History Although, no theory, perspective, or approach can as yet explain every incident of every crime, nor can they specify what fuels the needs or desires to cross the known legal lines; Criminologists believe that understanding the causes, contributions, and motivations of crime, it can be deterred efficiently; as well as, preventing offenders from repeating their offenses. Many feel that by having a fuller and more complete understanding of the psychology, physiology, and behaviors of crime it could be used to prevent, potential, criminal natures before these possible offenders reach adolescents (Dechant, 2009). Many different experts feel that crime is motivated, generally, by a few specific contributors, economic need or desire, opportunity and a limited likelihood of being caught, peer pressure, or a need to fit in. However, there are other possible contributors and causes that have little to do with environment or circumstance. There are people who are wealthy, well-liked, and, generally, fortunate in life who still commit crimes. At the same time, there are homeless people, who are poor and desperate who never commit crimes despite need. Given that there are so many possible contributors to human criminal behavior it is no wonder that there are so many possible theories developed to explain its causes and implications; from classical theory to conflict theory to labeling theory to social control theory. Trait Theory and Rational Choice Theory are just two, of more than a dozen, possible explanations presented by experts with the criminology industry. Discussion Trait Theory is the view that criminal behaviors and acts are a direct product of specific abnormal or psychological traits. These traits directly cause the abhorrent, deviant, or criminal behaviors. Modern criminologists who adhere to the trait theory to explain criminal behavior believe that there is not, necessarily, any single trait that encourages criminal behaviors, but many, each unique to different offenders (Dechant, 2009). For example, a mental condition like sociopathy is very different from someone who has a neurological condition, or perhaps brain deformity. Any individual offender could be “suffering” from the effects of psychological, physical, or biological traits, or a combination of these traits, that cause them to behave in a criminal manner and commit criminal acts. Some experts feel that if this is true then people, for example, with sociopathy or lack of ability to feel compassion or empathy, is legitimately ill and cannot be held responsible for their behaviors that their minds may be incapable of comprehending (Lyman & Potter, 2007). Of course, there may be very different traits that encourage a man, or woman, to “car jack” a driver, rob a liquor store, or murder an innocent person. The implications of Trait Theory, that certain human beings may have no real physical control over their actions, does find support within the realm of philosophy. Determinism is the philosophical perspective that all events, which include ethical and moral choices, are “predetermined” by an assortment of preexisting causes. The idea being that human beings behave as they do, not due to choice, but by a predetermined set of responses to specific situations (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). The philosophy involved in Determinism directly and completely negates the concept of free will. In the minds of determinist there is no such thing as conscious choice; we operate, essentially, on a “pre-known” set of responses. There is a great deal; of opposition to Trait Theory, both, philosophically and within criminology. Trait Theory presents a view on society that those who commit crimes are not really responsible for their own actions because biologically and psychologically speaking they could not have behaved any other way. That said it can make it hard to hold people accountable for the consequence of the crime they commit if they had “no will” in its commission. Opposition to this perspective considers it a dangerous and defeating perspective. If human beings are not active participants in their lives it will only breed laziness and increase the commission of crimes; after all we have no options and alleviate the responsibility and consequences of committing a crime. Like the concepts of destiny and fate. Trait Theory teaches people that what you want, do, or aspire to be irrelevant, your life course is already determined. No matter what you do with your life and your time the outcome will inevitably be the same; so why bother trying? In the same vein, if someone wants to commit a crime there is no longer anything to discourage them, after all they could not help themselves. Rational Choice Theory views the criminal actions of perpetrators is based on the “rational” or “purposefulness” of those perpetrators. The individuals are assumed to be rational actors who behave based on, or in spite of, the values and beliefs, motivated by the personal costs and benefits, and by weighing potential consequences (OConnor, 2012). The Rational Choice Theory firmly asserts that the “majority” of criminal acts of being human the actors have a clear choice in the commissions of their crimes. Human beings are more than capable of thinking in an ethical and rational way. All individuals have needs, wants, and desires and decide for themselves how they will attain them. Some resort to crime, while others seek their ends honestly. Either way it is a matter of self determination, self motivation, and free will. Free will is a subject that has been argued in philosophical circles for generations. In fact, the idea of free will associated with Rational Choice Theory is entirely antithetical to the ideas supporting the determinism present in trait Theory. Free Will in its purest form, simply, means that we are conscious and active participants in the decisions, choices we make, and actions we take, whether for better or worse (Timpe, 2014). In many circles free will is associated with deep reflection of the moral, ethical, personal, short, and long term consequences of any action before taking it. That said, Rational Choice Theories believe that criminal’s choose to commit crimes, knowing that they are “wrong,” and do them regardless of the overall consequences to themselves and to others (OConnor, 2012). This makes perpetrators of criminal acts completely and totally responsible for their crimes and, therefore, can be deservedly held accountable for their actions. One of the strongest supporting arguments for the Rational Choice Theory behind many criminal acts involves the behaviors of perpetrators after the crime has been committed. Those who commit the crimes may work hard to hide evidence, lie to cover up their crime, and actively do what is necessary to avoid being caught. This seems to insinuate that the perpetrators are aware of, both, the wrongness of the act and the potential consequences of being caught. Obviously, given the antithetical nature of these two perspectives there is opposition to Rational Choice, Trait Theorists questioning the validity of Rational Choice Theory and its insistence that all individuals are equally rational agents, they argue that Rational Choice Theory does not offer a place for those who through physical, biological, and physiological reasons may not be considered rational. For example, is an unmediated schizophrenic actively hearing voices really rational? Can these people really be held accountable for their actions? However modern Rational Choice Theorists admit that there are exceptions for rational choice. They do not deny the existence of legitimate medical conditions. They do not deny the existence of legitimate medical or psychological conditions can play a part in criminal activity within a portion of human society; but that does not speak to majority of criminal behavior. Most crimes are committed by rational individuals that consider their personal gain and their own self interests are worth the risk of defying laws and ethical considerations. They commit crimes to attain their goals (Hooker, 2011). They know what the rules and laws are, but they choose to ignore them. These theories represent a kind of extreme on the issue, however, there are more moderate perspectives. Biocriminologosts and medicine has taught us that there are genuine psychological, neurological, physical, biological, and genetic elements that can affect an individual’s ability to determine consequence, grasp the relevance of right and wrong, and make rational choices (Dechant, 2009). In these cases then they cannot ethically be held accountable in the same way as an individual who does not possess any genetic condition or concern. However to assume that these traits are all inclusive of all those who commit crime is unrealistic and relieves too many from the responsibility of their choices and actions. In fairness, the only way to rationally view the argument is to acknowledge traits in the instances, however, rare in certain cases, but when people knowingly choose crime, knowing the possible outcomes, then they must be made to understand the consequences of those choices. Conclusion Ultimately, we may never discover every reason for human behaviors in relation to committing criminal acts or any other aspect of the human experience. However, the effort to understand remains worthwhile to criminologists. Although, Trait Theory and Rational Choice Theory may be polar on their views, they both offer strong arguments for their positions. In the end, human beings behaviors may be as individual and unique as fingerprints. Some may suffer from conditions that compromise their thinking, while others option to commit crimes for gain, thrill, or need. That said human beings are inevitably a mixture of traits that can impact some behaviors, biological imperatives guided by animal instincts, and by rational thoughts leading to “free will” actions. Crime is an unfortunate reality of human society, continuing future research to understand it can, ultimately, only be beneficial society. References Dechant, A. P. (2009). The psychology of criminal behavior: Theories from past to present. Coastline Journal, 1. Retrieved from http://coastlinejournal.org/2009/04/13/the-psychology-of-criminal-behaviour-theories-from-past-to-present/ Hooker, J. N. (2011). 1 moral implications of rational choice theories . (Masters thesis, Carnegie Mellon University)Retrieved from http://ba.gsia.cmu.edu/jnh/rationalChoiceTheoriesPost.pdf Lyman, M. D., & Potter, G. W. (2007). Organized crime. (4th ed.). Prentiss Hall/Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6904/7070214/CRJ455_Ch02.pdf OConnor, T. (2012, March 5). Choice theory. Retrieved from http://www.drtomoconnor.com/1060/1060lect02.htm Timpe, K. (2014). Free will. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. online. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/ Encyclopedia Britannica. (2014). Determinism. In Encyclopedia Britannica. online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/159526/determinism Read More