Criminal Justice: Rationalism and Determinism - Essay Example

CRIMINAL JUSTICE - RATIONALISM AND DETERMINISM There have been many attempts in studies about crimes and scholars have come up with many theories which try to explain theories of crime. There have been two aspects that have been postulated by all these theories, rationalism and determinism. These two aspects have been supported by arguments with proponents and opponent taking sides. This paper will look in detail about the two aspects supporting them with necessary theories. In order define the two aspects, let us review some theories which supports each of the aspects so that we can have a clear definition of each. (Jenkins, 2005) Theories that postulate determinism There are several theories that try to put forward some explanations which postulate the theory of determinism. Most of these theories are rooted on the natural instinct that leads to commitment of crime or forces that compel individual to develop crime traits. There have been studies that have been carried out suggesting that genetic factors and other biological harming aspects like head injury and exposure to toxic substances, and others may increase the chances of someone becoming a criminal by developing some criminal traits like impulsitivity and sensations seeking. This effect of biological harms on individual traits has been explained to be the effect on the central nervous system including sympathetic and parasympathetic system. Many of the researches that have been carried out in this area focuses on chemical messenger which is the neurotransmitters which relays signals between neurons and the brain, and the hormones regulating body urges like sex drives and response to stressors like testosterones. Other factors like skin conductiveness, level of brain activities, and others which affects functioning of nervous system may lead to a dysfunction of the nervous system leading to development of crime traits. The general expression of these studies is that there are some natural factors that determine individual vulnerability to committing a crime. This means that some factors in the body and others in the environment that affects the biological status of the body can be responsible for criminal activities since they induce the development of criminal behaviors. Hence, there may be likelihood that criminals may be having a particular crime inducement gene that is not found in other people. Let us look at the postulation of the gene-based evolutionary theory. Gene-based evolutionary theory is supported by studies which suggested that crime is inherited in some genes. Although there has been no prove on crime genes as such, there is a likelihood that some individual traits like 'pushiness' or 'deception' may have some effect on development of crime traits. Studies have suggested that individuals with such traits can reproduce and pass on the traits to the next generation which may develop the same crime traits. However there has been much acrimony about the postulation of these genetic based crime theories with some arguing that they have not been able to explain some aspects of crime. It has also been argued that these theories give a postulation that we cannot control crime by the fact that we cannot change criminal behavior in the population since it is genetic. The theory wipes away the effects of the social environment on crime and supports the postulation that races and ethnic groups' view of crime may have biological backing. The two theories above can be explained by their postulation that there is crime traits in the individual is a functions of the biology of the body. This means that criminal traits in the individual can be inherited in the genes or it can result from change in the biological make up of the body as a result of exposure to harmful activities. They can be explained in a simple fact as their postulation that crime traits are determined by some factors beyond individual control. Determinism is supported by the earlier theories of crime which tried to explain the individual do not choose to engage in crimes but rather their engagement in crimes is determined by factors beyond their control. This is supported by the above theories which postulate that engagement in crime is largely as a result of forces which are beyond ones control. They stress that people do not choose to engage in crime but rather it results from various individual and social factors. This can be viewed in the postulation of the genetic evolution based theory which stress that individual inherit some traits that are conducive for commitment of a crime. Therefore determinism in understanding of criminal behaviors seems to stress that criminal behaviors are inculcated in our biological make up. Determinism shows that criminal behaviors are beyond the knowledge and control of criminals. Determinisms therefore means that we it is difficult for us to control crimes since they are in our biological make up and that crimes are caused by factors beyond our control. But this contrasts the idea of rationalism in crimes. Let us look closely at the postulation of rationalism and the theories that support it. Theories that postulates rationalism There are several theories that support the idea of rationalism. There are three broad theories that use the same idea which postulates the idea of rationalism in crime behaviors. Let us look closely are classical theory, deterrence theory and rational choice theory and try to relate them to understand the concept of rationalism. The classical theory of crime dominated the world in the early days. This theory postulates that it is the will of individuals to engage in crimes as a result of their rational consideration based on costs and benefits associated with crime. Studies carried out on this theory suggest that individuals engage in crime only after analysis the costs and benefits for engaging in crime. This shows a degree of rationalism in the way one engage in crimes which has become central to many of the crime theory in the modern days. One of the modern theories that borrow the ideas of the classical theory is the deterrence theory. Deterrence theory postulates that people are rational and they pursue their interests in an attempt to maximize their own pleasure and minimize their pain. Using this kind of analysis, individuals will engage in crimes when they believe that they will have an advantage resulting from the crime. The deterrence theory therefore suggest that the best way to prevent crimes is by imposing severe punishments which are swift, certain, and severe. Deterrence theories support official punishment of criminals. This theory is supported by the idea that individual will restrain from committing crimes due to fear of the punishment that will follow the conviction. The modern correction system is based on these deterrence theories. Most of the modern crime control policies and criminal justice systems are based on these theories. It is to be found out that criminal justice systems including that of United States has abandoned its rehabilitation approach to focus more on deterrence in the form of punishment. For example many of the states have put in place laws which impose life sentence on those who are convicted of a crime for the third time. The same has been applied on juvenile offenders by imposing harsher punishment in than those found in juvenile courts. This system of deterrence has been reached as a result of increased imprisonment in the United States. In this perspective, deterrence works in two ways, specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence stress that once an individual undergoes some form of punishment, the likelihood of that person engaging in crime again is lowered. This applies to the individual person who undergoes some kind of punishment. In terms of general deterrence it postulates that the punishment imposed on an individual serves as an example to others such that they will not engage in crime for fear of such kind of punishment. General deterrence is what supports the idea of capital punishment. However it has been shown that imposing more severe punishment on individuals does not reduce their chances of engaging in crime. In fact, some data has proved that the more severe the punishment imposed on an individual, the more the likelihood of that person engaging in crimes. However some studies have proved that swift punishment does indeed suppress crime behavior than delayed punishment but this has been found to be negative on humans perhaps due to their cognitive capacity on consequences. But why is it that those who are punished are not deterred from committing further crimes There are some reasons that can try to explain this. First, many of the convicts are not that much rational and some are even pressured to crimes by daily experiences in many facets of life. It may be due to economic pressure or due to peer pressure or any other kind of pressure that they may undergo. Hence many of them may not be deterred by the idea of consequent punishment. The second reason is that crime increase strain, reduce social control and increase the aspects of learning crime. This is mostly expressed in the way the society integrate offender back to the society. Third, it has been shown that our criminal justice system does not punish in the most effective way. There is low likelihood of punishment which may undermine the effects of punishment. It has been shown that deterrence may work for some people while at the same time it may not work for others. The effectiveness of individual punishment has been shown to be rooted on the traits and characters of the individual and their position in the society. People who are more bonded to the society and who have good characters are likely to be deterred from committing crimes through punishment by the fact that they have more to lose on their side and on their society, if they engage in crime again. However individuals who have no self-esteem, not rooted in the society have more chances of repeating crimes since being in jail or being punished does not make them less human than they are in the society. Hence this statement puts a strong point on the way the society integrates crime offenders back to the society. But this has been found inverse by some researchers. However we can make a conclusion that punishment works in either way in reducing or increasing crimes in that some individuals will reduce their engagement in crimes while others will increase their engagement in crimes when they are punished. Let us look closely at the rational choice theory. Rational choice theory borrows much of its postulation from classical and deterrence theories. Rational choice theory postulates that offenders are rational individuals who are out to maximize their pleasures and minimize their pain. This theory puts in some aspects of limited or bounded rationality which means that there are some considerations that are made in terms of costs and benefits. In their rational theory Clarke and Cornish tries to define these cost of crime in a broad manner. They try to put in formal and informal sanctions like parental disapproval in their definition and moral costs like the guilt and shame that follows the commitment of a crime. This contrast the rational theory to the classical and deterrence theories in that they see cost in terms of formal sanctions imposed on the individual as a form of punishment. Rational choice theory also puts in more emphases on the factors that influence the rational consideration of the cost since there are different factors that influence individual's estimation of costs and benefits. As per this theory, individual costs are determined by factors like individual's level of self control, moral beliefs, strains, emotional state, and the influences of the associates like the peers. The opponents of the rational theory suggest that individuals often commit crimes with little analyses of the benefits. They somehow conquer with the determinism theories which suggest that individuals commit crimes due to some factors which are beyond their control in the environment and their genetic make up. They suggest the individual act impulsively like under the influence of alcohol and drugs, or they commit a crime while they are under pressure. Data that have collected to support the theory however shows that there some rationalism in commitment of a crime. In particular they focus on the cost of committing the crimes in terms of the cost, in particular cost associated with official sanctions, condemnation by the family, feeling of guilt and shame, physical hurt in the act of crime, and the economic cost the come after the crime or in due cause of committing the crime. At the same time, these studies have also focused on other aspects of the perceived benefits like monetary profits, thrills and excitement, and the status one will be accorded after committing the crime. These studies have come up with a conclusion that crimes are likely to be committed when the costs of committing the crime are seen as low while the benefits are seemingly high. However it has been shown that some individual are not likely to be influenced by the cost benefit analyses especially when they are angry of intoxicated. There is also likelihood that crime in not just a function of benefit cost analysis as there are other factors like level of self-control and other which may have an impact on the likelihood of individual committing crimes. However we should understand that rational theory is based on deterrence and classical theories. This means it just expounds the two theories. It concurs with deterrence theory in that it analyses the cost which in deterrence theory is portrayed as punishment and the benefits which is portrayed as factors that encourages an individual to engage in crime activities. Hence rational choice theory may not appear as different from other as one may think although it argues that there must be a clear distinction between 'criminal involvement' and 'criminal events'. According to rationalism, criminal involvement specifically deals with the decision by an individual to be involved in crime, to continue to with crime or to desist from crime. On other hand criminal events deals with the decision to commitment some specific crime acts. We should understand that most of the other theories argue out on the decision to involve in crime but they do not look at the factors that influence the decision of the individual to engage in crimes. Most of these factors usually have to do with the current circumstances and situation that an individual is in. Rational choice theory therefore supplement these crime theories since it put more focuses on these factors that influence one to commit a crime. (Jenkins, 2005) Hence rationalism gives a different view of criminal behavior as compared to the concept of determinism. Rationalism shows that an individual is fully aware of the intention to engage in criminal activities and first carries out an analysis of the costs and benefits of engaging in crime. Unlike determinism, rationalism shows that individuals can avoid engaging in crime if they want. Rationalism has been widely applied in the modern criminal justice system although it has been shown that there are some aspects of crime behavior that defies this notion of rationalism and shows application of the concept of determines. Fore example it has been shown that despite there being capital punishment fore example in case of conviction for murder, individuals still kill while they are fully aware that they can be convicted of the crime. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't seem very efficient in explains such circumstances. After looking at the two concepts and the theories that support them, I feel that the concept of rationalism can help us to explain criminal behavior. This is because rationalism looks at criminal behavior in a broader perspective and takes in many consideration including biological and environmental factors. Rationalism can help us to understand criminal behavior by the fact that it gives a more insight in the behavior of criminals. It looks broadly at the factors that make individuals commit a crime and the rational consideration that they make. This is because most people are aware of what is wrong and what is good. People are fully aware of their actions and the consequences of their actions. Hence it is just a matter of an analysis that an individual makes on the benefits and consequences of the impending action. (Jenkins, 2005) Rationalisms also look broadly at the criminal justice system. The deterrence theory looks closely at modes of punishment as a cost for a crime. It explores various factor surrounding punishment and why it is effective or ineffective. However there are various feeling that have been expressed by different people on the idea of punishment which necessitates us to take a more broad approach to the whole concept. I feel that we should to integrate the postulation of both concepts of determinism and rational thinking in order to understand criminal behavior well. Reference: Jenkins, P. (2005). Varieties of Enlightment Criminology. British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 24(2): 113-145 Read More