Choice and Trait Theory

Choice Theory and Trait Theory

In Relations to the Arlington Crime.

Choice Theory and Trait theory is important when considering reasons

leading to criminal activity. Of the two the most appropriate to consider, while

creating strategies for controlling and/reducing crime, is the Choice theory. It is

necessary to understand both theories and how they affect the possibility of someone

taking part in criminal activity. Cornish and Clarke (1986) construe rational-choice

theory as a way of both “rearranging existing theories and data to throw new light

on criminal behaviors” and as a “policy-relevant perspective on criminal

behavior.” In this belief, they are not alone (Felson and Clarke, 1998;

Weisburd, 1997).

In the Arlington crime the choice of robbery and murder was made by the

criminal in aspects to the crime. So the choice theory is that the criminals choose to

do the crime knowing what the possible outcome could be. With the trait theory it is

said to be based on the biological and environment status of the criminal. This essay

will explain both theories individually, the affects they have on law implementation,

and the crime of the Arlington men found dead.

I have decided to use the story of the two Arlington men found dead in their apartment complex. In this situation the men can with a gun in the thoughts of robbing the victim. In the end the robbers not only committed a crime of robbery but also a crime of murder. With the crime not being solved it was then committed again and could have been done by the same individuals. Therefore the crimes have not been deterred and wont stop until the criminals are caught or have the feeling of satisfaction in there mind to stop the crime on their own.

Choice Theory

Choice theory is the belief that criminals choose to commit crimes. These

crimes are committed after the criminals weigh the potential benefits and

consequences of their criminal acts. Theorists, James Q Wilson (1980) observed that

people who commit crime are unafraid of breaking the law because they value the

excitement and thrills of the crime and are willing to take greater chances than the

average person. In accordance to choice theory to deter crime the punishment

should be as severe as the crime committed. Choice theory is best seen as a

“framework, a rubric or a family of theories” that serves to “organize findings, link

theoretical statements and logically guide theory construction” (Hechter and

Kanazawa (1997). The importance of choice theory is to get the interpretation of

crime and the justification for the crime in the eyes of the criminal and feeling of the

victim. The most important part of the choice theory is the decision making process.

It is a process of cognition and calculation in which a person pursues a desired goal,

weighs likely consequences, and chooses the options to commit or not to commit a

crime. Predictions based on rational outcomes are most accurate in large random

population samples where idiosyncratic differences in decisions cancel each other

(Friedman and Hechter. (1988); Hechter, (1996); Hechter and Kanazawa, (1997).

Many decisions of everyday life are based on imperfect knowledge and crude,

subjective assessments of utility. In many situations, for example, decision makers

opt for what has become convenient and routine and based on the fact of if they feel

they can get away with the crime of if they had already gotten away with the crime.

Beyond rudimentary statements of crime-as-choice theory is a more complex

understanding developed through critique, research, and theoretical elaboration. Its

core is belief that “when faced with several courses of action, people usually do what

they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome” Jon Elster (1989). Choice

theory views offending behaviors as involving decision making and the making of

choices, which are constrained by time, cognitive ability and information, resulting

in a 'limited ' rather than a 'normal ' rationality for the offender. Cornish and Clarke

(1998) therefore stress the need to be crime-specific when analyzing offender

decision making and choice selection, and to treat separately decisions relating to

the various stages of involvement in offences. ).

In the crime that was committed in Arlington the three criminals made the

choice to commit the crime knowing the consequences of there actions. The three

white males decided to rob the friend of the victim (Reginald Taylor) which led to

the death of Reginald Taylor. The choice theory in this crime was a part 1 crime

robbery which led to murder. It is clear also that decision makers are “fallible

learners who seek to do as well as they can, given the constraints that they face”

Elinor Ostrom, (1998). In this crime the criminals made the decision to rob

the gentleman and since one of them had a gun, they knew the situation could

possibly get out of hand. So when the victim was approaching them one of them shot

him which brought murder into the mix. So the criminals were planning to rob

these men by any means necessary including death. With the second crime in

Arlington it seems as if it was committed by the same people. Every situation in

both crimes have similarity in them. The criminals choose to rob the man and then

shot him in both crimes. The choice theory is that because they were able to get

away with the first crime they committed the second crime. Until the criminals are

caught and punished to the severity of the crimes committed, they will continue to

commit the crimes. Research demonstrates that recidivism amongst convicted felons

following release from prison is as high as 63% and that most prison inmates had

arrest records and convictions prior to their current offense (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1989). So the choice of the crime was that they decided to commit the act

of robbery. When the crimes was still unsolved the criminals decided to commit the

same crime again regardless of the outcome and or death of another human being.

Trait Theory

Trait theory is the view that criminality is a product of abnormal biological or psychological traits. It is an approach to personality theory in psychology. The traits theory aspect states that a person personal characteristic and social environment work together to create the criminal behavior. The emotions, thoughts, and behavior patterns that a person has are referred to as a personality (Kassin
(2003) and can vary between individuals. Trait theory some times seems logical and or straight forth, but it has it good and or bad points. Understanding trait theory will help us to better understand people and what they think in relations to crime and life in general. Trait theory states that if a person background is full of violence and crime then that person is more than likely to show those behaviors. This is one of the bad aspects in a way that it says if you are from a bad environment you will a criminal and or no one can change.

The Arlington crime was a crime of robbery and murder. In this crime the trait

theory would suggest that the men committed the crime because of the social

environment and the biological background of the criminals. The three men who

shot the Arlington men could have been a involved in a gang in which the social

environment would have been the trait theory that was the reason of the crime.

Whether the crime was a biological crime would be based on the background of the

criminals. The biological aspect of the crime can’t and wont be determined until the

criminals are caught. Then they will possibly have the change to give a reason to

why they committed the crime and or the motives behind the actions of the crime.

The criminal in this crime went on the impulse of robbery and then ended in

murder. By being able to get away it gave the criminals the impulse to do it again

until they are caught. That impulse becomes a psychological trait which makes the

criminals feels as if they are inferior and can’t be caught so the continue until they

are caught. When the criminals are caught the crime weight is basically lifted off of

the criminal’s shoulders and the future crimes by these criminals were deterred.

In conclusion although different choice theories and trait theories are based on

the criminal mind. Choice theory is based on the criminal having the option to

choose whether to commit a crime or not to commit a crime. While the trait theory

is describe as a product of a persons biological and environmental background or

status. Taking the choice theory into account is taking into consideration the next

stages in life. The stages that combined with environmental and genetic makeup can

contribute to the choice to act as a criminal. In this the criminal weights the act of

committing the crime which then leads to the trait theory where the biological

background is considered and the environmental setting. This is true in the choice

theory because every individual has a choice to decide if committing a crime is the

right choice to make within their life. While trait theory could be based on parental

background and the environment in which the person lives in. Both theories are

true in the aspect of crime. Only choice theory helps to find a way to deter a person

from crime while trait theory is depending upon where you live and how you were

rose in the aspect of crime. This implies that if you have a biological background

in crime then most likely you will most likely commit crimes yourself. If you live in

a neighborhood where crime is the forefront of the community than you will show

those behaviors. So when determining why people engage in criminal behavior, the

individuals should be considered biologically, socially, and psychologically. . With

choice theory and trait theory being possible factors of these crimes they are and

should be in relations when considering the reasons for committing crimes.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics-1989, UNCRIM Gopher, SUNY-Albany, 1994.
Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke. 1986. “Preface.” The
Reasoning Criminal, edited by Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke.
New York: Springer-Verlag. Corporate Crime Reporter. 2003.

Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Felson, Marcus, and Ronald V. Clarke. 1998. Opportunity Makes the Thief:
Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.

Friedman, Debra, and Michael Hechter. 1988. “The contribution of rational choice theory to macro sociological research.” Sociological Theory

Hechter, Michael. 1996. “Through thick and thin: How far can theory predict behavior?” The Times Literary Supplement, no. 4852, March 29,
1996

Hechter, Michael, and Satoshi Kanawaza. 1997. “Sociological rational choice theory.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:191–214

Kassin, S 2003. Psychology. USA: Prentice Hall Inc

Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action.” American Political Science Review 92:1–22.

Weisburd, David. 1997. Reorienting Crime Prevention Research and Policy: From the Causes of Criminality to the Context of Crime. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Wilson, James. (2003) “Thinking About Crime”

References: Bureau of Justice Statistics-1989, UNCRIM Gopher, SUNY-Albany, 1994. Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V New York: Springer-Verlag. Corporate Crime Reporter. 2003. Elster, Jon Felson, Marcus, and Ronald V. Clarke. 1998. Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention Friedman, Debra, and Michael Hechter. 1988. “The contribution of rational choice theory to macro sociological research.” Sociological Theory Hechter, Michael. 1996. “Through thick and thin: How far can theory predict behavior?” The Times Literary Supplement, no Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action.” American Political Science Review 92:1–22. Weisburd, David. 1997. Reorienting Crime Prevention Research and Policy: From the Causes of Criminality to the Context of Crime Wilson, James. (2003) “Thinking About Crime”