Humans Have Been Contemplating Their

¶ … humans have been contemplating their existence there has been a duality of belief about choices individuals make for both good and evil. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that holds that humans are reasoning beings and are able to weigh options and consequences and come up with rational choices -- costs, benefits, etc. In order to make decisions. Delinquency, for instance, has been part of history for thousands of years -- typically founded upon an economic theory in which marginalized youth, being unable to take advance of opportunities and usually pressed towards the edge of society. For example, if one looks at the concept of childhood, one finds it to be a relatively modern paradigm -- and with it, the idea that aberrant behavior can be thought of as indicative of larger behavioral patterns that are based solely within the confines of culture. "a Weakness of incompleteness of much sociologic reasoning on the causal process in crime is the assumption that the mass social stimulus to behavior, as reflected in the particular culture of a region, is alone, or primarily, the significant causal force" (Cullen and Agnew, 2011, 466). Essentially then, if one understands why a crime is being committed, one might help society develop ways to mitigate crime. Choice theory in its most basic form says that individuals look at opportunities within society, weigh the positives and negatives (chances to get caught, punishment, gain, etc.) and choose to proceed or not based on that choice).

There are both positives and negatives about Choice Theory when it comes to criminal activity as presented by the authors. The strength of the argument is that is logical and follows basic psychological theory. It is also strong in terms of motivation -- if society makes the punishment so stringent that the criminal is demotivated to commit a crime, then it is possible most criminal activity would cease. If one adopts the idea of rational choice, then deterrence is a major means of controlling crime. Punishments, then, for society, should fit the crime and be severe enough to make the individual wary of committing them because the system is so professional that they will likely get caught. "The point… is that… people are likely to have a mixture of indirect and direct experience with punishment and punishment avoidance"( Stafford and Warr, 2011, 396). The U.S. Justice system is inherently based on this theory.

The negatives surrounding the theory is that there are always people who think they can beat the system, and always willing to try something new; a new scheme, a new idea, or even a new manner of committing crime. While everyone else may get caught -- they won't. Couple this with a relatively unequal justice system in which individuals are able to get away with committing crimes based on their economic status (hiring lawyers, who they know, political connections, etc.), and that punishment is not necessarily equal. If someone shoplifts, for instance, and is caught, they will likely have relatively little punishment if this is their first offense. On the other hand, America's drug laws have quite serious penalties for what many consider a mental illness. One must ask what society is willing to do to deter crime -- what is considered serious (e.g. stealing bread in Les miserable), and allowing the nature of punishment be focused more on the crimes that tend to hurt society the most.

Part 2 -- Developmental Theories and Understanding of Criminal Behavior - the basic idea of development theories of crime have at their core the idea that humans are actually either inherently good (more Locke) or more of a blank slate in which society/culture leaves its mark. Any antisocial behaviors must develop over time and are the result of some sort of underlying behavior or condition that occurs and is amplified during life's processes and activities. Circumstances, not an inherent bent on being deviant, is what makes this theory work.

The theory changes the position of how we view criminal activity in that some actions increase the possibility of deviance, while others decrease crime. It is not, however, as simple as nature vs. nurture. People who have a nurturing environment, who come from good families, and people who are part of the clergy or other moral orders commit crimes, too.

Development theory does help us understand how serious delinquency and aberrant behavior can have roots in serious child abuse and maltreatment. In this case, and after many years of serious issues, developmental theory helps us understand how societal monsters are created that, frankly, no amount of deterrence can mitigate the behavior. "Among persons who have been punished many times and/or have avoided punishment repeatedly (i.e. habitual offenders,) their criminal behavior should be largely a function of specific deterrence (direct experience with punishment and punishment avoidance" (Stafford and Warr, 398).

The different developmental theories certainly look at the process of deviance from a different standpoint -- causality is different, individual differences, societal and demographic differences, cultural attributes, peer pressure, chronology, geography, etc. These theories all look towards the external -- the coercion, the manner of psychological and cultural pressure, the idea that criminal behavior comes from outside the individual. In some respects, this almost sounds as if it is not the individual's fault that the behavior is occurring, but rather the idea that it is caused by other actions. Choice theory holds that the individual is optimally responsible for their own behavior and that society mitigates the behavior, it does not cause it per se.