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.
Morals.

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..)

Sort:  

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!

Cheers!

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.