You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Are We Born Criminals? Part II: The Rational Choice Theory

in #psychology3 years ago

An interesting article that doesn't really mention one very important thing.

Not including criminal activity that involves violence , theft, or coercion, the definition of 'crime' is a very dubious one, and one decided upon by the state (generally).

The definition of committing a crime is purely subjective according to government.
A criminal growing cannabis for example. There is no victim, but still punishable by the state.
(or tax evasion, even - which is an act theft in of itself by the lawmakers).

If an individual commits crime without a victim, personal moral compass comes into it.
It could be argued the perception of committing a crime is not even present, depending on the personal internal landscape.

Many criminals I know of, would never hurt anyone - but will not accept the rules dictated by the biggest criminal of them all - governments that are implementing the laws...

RCT theory is flawed by not recognizing a difference of 'crime', as moral choice is not recognized.
And from what I know, morals play are a big component to crimes, rather than the legal positions of punishment, or threat of...
(Just my opinion..)


Yes, you are absolutely correct! But the point here is just to represent this model of thinking. The facts that you mentioned are without a doubt significant for a criminal act to occur. But I will write about that in the parts to follow and we would do a comparison between the different schools of thought.

Thank you for reading and sharing your opinion. It is always valuable and welcome on my articles!


Oops, sorry - You can always count on me to jump in feet first, and then realize I was off topic...It's just what struck me first about the model.