THE ASSIGNMENT IS UPLOADED. PLEASE DO NOT USE ANY AL OR CHAT GPT. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ANWER ALL THE QUESTIONS PLEASE.
I WILL POST DOWN LOW A PAPER I WROTE ALSO YOU COULD GO BY THIS TOO AND THE OTHER SOURCES IVE UPLOADED.
The modern criminal justice system is based on deterrence theory and the rational choice theory (RCT) and these theories continue to shape the understanding of crime in daily life. According to these theories, people are rational actors who consider the potential benefits of crime against the risk and cost, especially the possibility and the punishment of severity (Stafford & Warr, 1993). They are thoroughly ingrained in popular culture and in everyday decision-making as well as in law and policy.
The aspects of deterrence and rational choice thinking can be particularly observed in the field of traffic enforcement. The principle behind speed cameras, red-light cameras, and sobriety checkpoints is that by amplifying the likelihood of the punishment, the likelihood of offense will be discouraged. Many individuals change their actions even at the individual level when they spot a police car or a surveillance camera on the road and either decelerate or do not text and drive. Such responses are the rational choice of computation that is stressed in the classical deterrence theory; the perceived danger of confrontation is higher than the inconvenience or reward of breaking the law (Apel, 2013). The popular culture supports this reasoning crime dramas that focus on the ultimate failure of getting caught and the offenders depicted as tactical decision-makers where they are trying to reduce risk and maximize reward.
Nevertheless, due to the assumptions of rational choice, human actions in many cases are simplified. People do not necessarily make a decision using perfect information or just using rational calculations. Risk perception is influenced by experience, emotion, and cognitive biases, making it more difficult to develop the deterrence model (Simon et al., 2000). It is this discrepancy between theory and reality that underscores the fact that deterrence does not work on everyone equally, and that certainty of punishment is more likely to have an impact than severity.
Even though biological explanations of crime such as phrenology and craniometry have been proven as false, some remnants are still present in contemporary society. These biosocial theories tried to connect criminality with physical characteristics, which meant that criminality was biologically predetermined and was not influenced by the social or situational factors. Although modern criminology does not support such deterministic assertions, such assumptions can still be perceived in an implicit way. To give an example, stereotypes about criminality such as facial expression, body shape, or a dangerous character are still present in policing and the perception of the population. Rafter (2008) shows that people tend to relate crime with some racial or physical traits, and this is the reasoning that early biological studies had.
Biosocial thinking can also be traced in the modern risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system. These tools are based on statistical correlations rather than physical measurements, yet criminal behavior may be discussed as an inherent risk, existing in the person rather than as a result of social context, opportunity, or structural inequality. This reflective fashion of early biological theories to attribute crime to the individual as opposed to the environmental context (Connell et al., 2024).
Combined, the deterrence, rational choice theory, and early biosocial explanations indicate how long held assumptions about human behavior have been influencing reactions to crime. Although deterrence and rational choice are still powerful as they are easy to understand and policy-relevant, their shortcomings emphasize the need to combine psychological, social, and structural approaches. To prevent the biased treatment of crime and justice, as well as to come up with effective and fair policies, it is important to understand the persistence of biological determinism.
References
Apel, R. (2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence.Journal of quantitative criminology,29(1), 67-101.
Connell, N. M., Bartlett, D., Ackerman, J., Haaland, M., Forrester, L., Ruiz, C., … & Allard, T. (2024). Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice: An Australasian Perspective.
Pogarsky, G., Roche, S. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2017). Heuristics and biases, rational choice, and sanction perceptions. Criminology, 55(1), 85111.
Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence.Journal of research in crime and delinquency,30(2), 123-135.
Requirements: NA
Get fast, custom help from our academic experts, any time of day.
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts.
Secure 100% Original On Time Delivery