Philosophical approaches and methodologies

Criminological Theories

Philosophical approaches

Philosophical approaches to criminology:

Two differing ethical worldviews regarding free will and choice

The rational choice theory of criminology is perhaps the oldest theory of why people commit crimes. "Rational choice theories explain social behavior via the aggregated actions of rational or purposive actors. The actors are rational in the sense that, given a set of values and beliefs, they calculate the relative costs and benefits of alternative actions and, from these calculations, make a choice that maximizes their expected utility" (Simpson, 2006, cited by O'Connor, 2007). Rational choice theory assumes some intelligence and thoughtfulness on the part of the criminal, in which the potential committer of the crime weighs the options of choosing to commit or not to commit the crime. A good example of this can be seen with a common crime, that of speeding while driving. Many people decide that the likelihood of being caught going over the speed limit in some areas is sufficiently negligible to justify driving very fast, to gain extra time or to simply enjoy the thrill of driving. However, when they are fully aware that a police officer always lies in wait at a particular junction of the highway, or that a particular town is known for giving many speeding tickets, they make the rational choice to slow down.

This rational approach to crime suggests that to deter speeding, the best mechanism is to have very aggressive enforcement of the crime. Additionally, having high fines and penalties, and letting few people go with merely a warning will also deter the crime. People are more likely to decide that it is worth being late to work, versus paying several hundreds of dollars in fine and extra money to get car insurance. Similarly, the rational choice model suggests that people will commit crimes if there is no deterrent to do so. If someone knows that he or she can make more money selling drugs than working an honest job, and there is little risk of being caught or receiving a substantial prison sentence, he or she will act in a criminal manner. This is true of all levels of society. A stockbroker will engage in insider trading if it is financially profitable for him to do so, and he or she knows that getting caught is unlikely, or that the punishment is relatively minimal. There are "three (3) elements of the situation present for any crime to occur: (1) potential offenders; (2) suitable targets; and (3) incapable, unwilling, or absent guardians" (O'Connor 2007).

However, this begs the question of why some people do not commit crimes, even if there is a low possibility of retribution and a high payoff for engaging in illegal actions. According to control theories of crime, "They key factor in crime causation is thus the presence or absence of control. These controls or containment might be rooted in relationships (e.g., social bonds) or be internal (e.g., self-control). Exposure to control also might differ by social location and by the historical period, such as the changing level and type of control given to males and females" (Criminological theory summaries, 2012, UWEC). Like classical theories of criminology, social control theory emphasizes 'choice' on the part of criminal actors, but it stresses the role of society in shaping individual attitudes towards crime.

Specifically, social control theory postulates that the reason people do not commit crimes are because of their investments in social institutions and the benefits they receive from being a member of various social and vocational organizations. There is a calculation of benefits and rewards, when deciding whether to lead a law-abiding life or a life of crime. Someone who decides to obey the law has decided that the benefits he or she receives from a legitimate job and social approbation are greater than those derived from criminal activity. In contrast, someone who decides to become a criminal is not receiving any benefits from being a member of legitimate society, and thus instead chooses a criminal path.

The differing views of these philosophies also affect the prescription their advocates offer as a prescription for crime prevention. A classical, rational choice theorist usually takes a 'tough on crime approach.' Rehabilitation is deemphasized; instead, it is important to ensure that justice is swift, consistent, and relatively harsh, although it should be proportional to the crime. Social control theorists, in contrast, emphasize the need to strengthen social institutions such as the family, schools, and community organizations to ensure that people feel too much of an investment in society to flagrantly transgress its boundaries.