This paper examines the Casey Anthony case through two criminological frameworks: rational choice theory and situational choice theory. It summarizes the key facts of the case — including Caylee Anthony's disappearance and death in 2008, Anthony's deceptive behavior, and her 2011 acquittal — and applies each theory to explain Anthony's alleged motivations. The paper also evaluates why the neo-classical theory proves least effective in this context, and considers how understanding Anthony's behavior could assist law enforcement in monitoring her future conduct and addressing the root causes of her actions.
In June 2008, Casey Anthony was living in Tampa, Florida with her three-year-old daughter Caylee. At the time, Anthony was supposed to be looking for work and a new place to live, as she had been staying with her parents and was seeking greater independence. After Anthony arrived in Tampa, she began to exhibit strange behavior toward her parents regarding her daughter. They wanted to speak with Caylee, but the child was never available. Anthony told them that Caylee was at an amusement park, at the beach, or spending time with a fictitious nanny named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez (Jensen 284–288; "Casey Anthony").
In reality, Caylee had been murdered. When Anthony returned home, she reported her daughter missing — by which point no one had seen Caylee for an entire month. After interviewing the family and Anthony, police quickly determined that she was lying. In December 2008, Caylee's body was discovered in a shallow grave near the family's home. The cause of death was asphyxiation, with evidence suggesting chloroform had been used and a piece of duct tape placed over the child's mouth (Jensen 284–288; "Casey Anthony").
The inconsistencies in Anthony's story and the weight of circumstantial evidence made her the prime suspect. She was charged and tried for the murder of her daughter in proceedings that lasted from May to July 2011. After hearing arguments from both sides, a jury acquitted Anthony of the charges. These events illustrate how Anthony's behavior placed her at the center of the investigation. To fully understand what took place requires examining two criminological theories, identifying which theory is least effective, and considering how this analysis can help law enforcement understand and predict this kind of behavior in the future (Jensen 284–288; "Casey Anthony").
Even accepting the not-guilty verdict handed down by the court, two criminological theories apply directly to the Casey Anthony case: rational choice theory and situational choice theory. Rational choice theory holds that criminals make decisions based on personal choice after weighing the benefits and drawbacks of a given situation. As applied to Anthony, this theory suggests that she no longer wanted the responsibilities of parenthood. To achieve her goals, she allegedly murdered her daughter and constructed a story about a kidnapping ("Review of Basic Criminological Theory"; Jensen 284–288).
Situational choice theory holds that crimes occur based on individual choices shaped by specific motivating factors. When applied to Anthony's situation, it suggests that murdering her daughter was a deliberate choice driven by a desire for personal freedom. Both theories, therefore, point to self-interested motivation as the core explanation for her alleged actions ("Review of Basic Criminological Theory"; Jensen 284–288; "Casey Anthony").
"Why neo-classical theory fails to explain Anthony"
"How theory informs monitoring and prevention"
"Casey Anthony." Investigation Discovery, 2011. Web.
"Review of Basic Criminological Theory," 2012.
Jensen, Vicky. Women Criminals. Staten Island: Greenwood, 2012. Print.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.