There is no single answer to the question “Why do people commit crime?” ". Do criminals act rationally after weighing the consequences of a crime? Is society responsible for crime? Do mental health disorders, neurological diseases or genetics play a role? There are many theories that seek to explain whether these acts are deliberate or based on circumstances unfavorable to the control of the offenders. Some of these theories will be explored in this essay. Classical criminology is based on the idea that people commit crimes because the consequences of their actions are not clear to them. Jeremy Bentham was an influential figure in classical criminology and he assumed that being confident in knowing the consequences of committing a crime would have a deterrent effect that would ensure rational members of society would not commit it - he said that crime was the result of a person's upbringing. rather than being congenital, people are rational beings who will seek to find pleasure while trying to avoid pain and criminals lack the self-control necessary to control their passions. This is based on the assumption that human beings are rational and evaluate the consequences of their actions before implementing them. When applied to the crime committed, the person would have to weigh the benefits of the crime, such as monetary gain, against the potential punishment – ​​if the latter outweighed the former, then a rational decision would be made not to participate in criminal activity. Say no. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay Rational choice, however, relies on many assumptions, the first being that the offender identifies as an individual, which which we call “individualism”. . The second asserts that criminals must maximize their goals and, finally, that they are self-interested. Emotion plays an important role in rational choice theory: a person's emotional state is an important factor on which rational behavior is based. The anticipated emotional consequences of criminal behavior are one of the benefits considered in the rational decision-making process. The potential emotional costs associated with criminal behavior could prevent the likelihood of criminal behavior. Emotions are at the heart of the psychological process of motivating individuals to pursue their desires. A major difficulty with classical criminology is its insistence on the belief that crime is a rational act based on an individual's calculation of gain – this is disputed by positivist criminology, Joyce (2012). According to deterrence theory, people make decisions to obey or break the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions. People may refrain from committing crimes for fear of legal sanctions – called absolute deterrence – or they may restrict their criminal activities, known as restrictive deterrence. If legal sanctions can be certain, severe and swift, this should be enough to deter people from engaging in criminal activity. Punishments can be objective; such as what justice officials actually do to punish offenders – and perceived punishments, that is, potential offenders' perceptions of what justice officials actually do. There are also extra-legal sanctions to consider, such as stigmatization and vigilante justice. Free ideasarbitrator and rational choice are problematic in that they cannot account for crimes committed by people who cannot be held responsible for their actions – such as people with mental illness. People who commit crimes of passion do not act out of rational calculation, and free will does not take into account people who commit crimes out of necessity – such as poverty or victims of domestic violence. The social causes of crime are completely neglected, Newburn (2009). Positivist criminology maintains that a criminal's actions are not motivated by rational choice but are the consequence of factors that a person cannot control. Therefore, treatment rather than punishment is the correct response to a person's criminality. Positive criminology is based on conclusions based on scientific investigations – notably: biology, sociology and psychology. Lombroso argued that "criminal man's behavior was determined by his biological makeup – he said that criminals were individuals who had not evolved at the same rate as non-offending beings." The suggestion that a person was simply "born bad" paved the way for biological theories that raised questions regarding genetic makeup and questioned whether crime was genetic and could be hereditary. The idea that your biological makeup makes you a criminal is challenged by the "nature versus nurture" debate - culture holds that criminality arises from many factors such as upbringing, economic or social circumstances or peer pressure. Psychological theories suggest that criminal behavior is based on mental illness, such as: personality disorders or neurological problems. Freud – whose work paved the way for the theory that human behavior is controlled by a process that occurs within the individual's mind – paid particular attention to childhood memories and experiences, especially traumatic ones. He said these memories are stored in the unconscious part of a person's mind and influence their thoughts and behavior, which could then lead to personality disorders that would explain criminal acts. Sociological theories of crime are based on the importance of social factors and their influence on human behavior. Anomie is the concept used to explain a state of social disobedience in which accepted rules of behavior – including the law – are insufficient to deter people from engaging in criminal behavior that benefits them – regardless of the impact. what it has on others. Merton (1968) proposed a constraints theory to explain crime. It states that crime is the consequence of a society that places increasing pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals when individuals do not have the means to achieve these goals – this leads to tensions that could lead to undertaking criminal activities to achieve such unrealistic goals. This is seen today in the growing culture of social media, which places increased pressure on individuals to conform. Drug trafficking and prostitution could fall under the strain theory, as a means of gaining financial security. Cohen (1950) examined groups using strain theory and posited that those whose social circumstances make it difficult to achieve these standards develop a different sense of moral views that would be considered by the rest of the population.society as deviant. These groups may behave criminally by attempting to gain status among their associates – for example by stealing a car and driving it instead of selling it for financial gain. The compulsion theory is criticized because it relies primarily on lower class criminals, as this is a group that struggles with the resources necessary to acquire their gains. Strain theory neglects white-collar crime, even though the white-collar criminal has many opportunities to succeed through legitimate and legal means. Merton also neglects the social structure that constitutes the pressure placed on individuals who commit crime. An approach linked to strain theory again focuses on social disorganization, particularly in communities – emphasis is placed on the importance of the impact of the “neighborhood effect” – social status and Crime rates in a neighborhood have a significant effect on the likelihood that an individual will become involved in criminal behavior, regardless of their socioeconomic status. The community context largely explains why some unemployed and young people living in poverty have a greater need to commit crimes than other similar young people. This can be seen in contemporary Britain with the emergence of “ASBOs”, dispersal zones, exclusion orders and curfews – which have proliferated since the early 2000s. It has been claimed that anti-social behavior was widely dramatized – although in urban areas, areas of social housing and social deprivation, concerns about youth offending were strongly expressed. Opportunity theory is also linked to youth crime – opportunity theory states that it is impossible to obtain gains in society through legitimate means and groups people who have this state of spirit – particularly youth gangs, which then developed a subculture of delinquency. This subculture is not cohesive – as it depends on the criminal opportunities available in each area. In areas where crime and gang activity are commonplace, gangs would emerge in this environment – ​​whereas an area lacking such a criminal structure would be filled with gangs vying for control of it. According to deterrence theory, people make decisions to obey or break the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions. People may refrain from committing crimes for fear of legal sanctions – called absolute deterrence – or they may restrict their criminal activities, known as restrictive deterrence. If legal sanctions can be certain, severe and swift, this should be enough to deter people from engaging in criminal activity. Punishments can be objective; such as what justice officials actually do to punish offenders – and perceived punishments, that is, potential offenders' perceptions of what justice officials actually do. There are also extra-legal sanctions to consider, such as stigmatization and vigilante justice. When considering why someone might be driven to commit a crime, it is important to look at the bigger picture of their life. The murder of Joe Geelong has been analyzed using some of these theories: On March 1, 2006, Joe Geeling was stabbed, beaten and then dumped in a park. A massive search was launched when Joe, who suffered from cystic fibrosis, failed to return home from school. His body was found in a nearby park the next day, he had beenvaguely covered with debris. Michael Hamer, a 15-year-old student who attended the same school as Joe, was arrested the same day. It turned out that Hamer had lured Joe to his home, using a fake letter purportedly from the vice principal of their school. Hamer, who was struggling with his sexuality, made a sexual advance towards Joe, who rebuffed him and threatened to announce to everyone that Hamer was gay, which angered the boy, who then attacked Joe with a frying pan and stabbed him sixteen times. He then placed Joe's body in a wheelie bin and dumped it in a nearby park, Bunyan (2006). It emerged during his trial that he had a “sexual obsession” with Joe, even though he was not openly gay. Hamer is believed to have suffered from an attachment disorder resulting from his abandonment by his father as a child. Bowlby (1969) states that children who suffer from the absence of a parent during childhood can lead to various problems later in life: if a child has gone through a prolonged period of separation from his or her primary caregiver, it becomes difficult for him to learn. how to connect and build relationships as they develop. It is easy for a child to become apathetic and very focused on themselves. These characteristics are also observed in children who engage in delinquent behavior. Bowlby says that crime and violence are disorders of the attachment system: children who are not properly attached to their caregivers may have difficulty caring about the well-being of others and this stems from their inability to create connections. These children are also at higher risk of developing personality disorders, depression and cognitive difficulties. Psychiatrists at Hamer's trial established that he suffered from an adjustment disorder, which stemmed from his troubled childhood, and that it affected his mental abilities. His mental capacity was not deemed unstable enough to reduce the crime to manslaughter and Hamer admitted that it was his anger and sexual rejection that led to Joe's murder. He said he wanted to make people feel “alone and scared” by sexually abusing him – this could be linked to the inability to feel empathy or care about others. Hamer suffered from a sense of shame, perhaps due to the fact that he had been abandoned by his father and it was further fueled by his quiet nature which led to him being bullied at school – which further reinforces the feelings of abandonment he harbored. Everywhere he turned he faced rejection, from his home life, even though he had a loving and supportive mother, to school – Hamer never managed to find a place where he fit in . In psychoanalytic theory; Proper socialization is adequate enough to curb the natural impulses and urges that Freud says all humans have stored in their unconscious. Michael Hamer often spent hours at a time in his room, playing videos and simulation games alone. He also had difficulty socializing with children his own age and associated with much younger children. This inappropriate socialization could lead to personality disorders that could project antisocial and deviant behaviors outward, leading to crime. Rational choice theory would argue that Hamer knew the consequences of killing Joe, but made the decision to commit the act – perhaps to protect himself from Joe's revelations at school about his sexuality. Although it could also be due to a feeling of panic whereby Hamer realized that killing Joe was his only option – without thinking carefully about the consequences. Fear of his bullies – andpotentially from his absent father discovering his sexuality, was not enough to deter Hamer from committing the murder, even knowing that killing Joe's wound would significantly affect his life and the lives of those around him, as well as La family of Joe Geelong. Biologically, Hamer's act could be explained by the lack of emotional maturity of his brain – at 14, the frontal lobe is not yet fully developed and therefore adolescents are not always able to control their emotional brain – which can lead to risk-taking and impetuous behavior. . Hereditary criminality could not be considered a factor in Hamer's case – since his mother was a caring and loving parent and his father, although absent – ​​was a police officer with no history of crime. It is also possible to approach a completely different type of crime in the same way, largely neglected by society and the media in general. In 2005, Leo Kozlowski was convicted of crimes related to obtaining $81 million in unapproved bonuses, as well as purchasing more than $14 million in artwork and paying for it authorized bank charges to support the director. He was sentenced to six years in prison, which he served and was released in 2014. It is sometimes more difficult to understand why high-flying businessmen commit money-related crimes, because they do not It's not out of necessity but out of greed. The justice system generally treats white-collar crime much more leniently than "street crime," even though white-collar crime causes more deaths and injuries than any other type of crime. Sutherland (1987) argues that men like Kozlowski commit their crimes because they are able to find ways to justify their behavior. Embezzlers believe they are simply borrowing money. Executives who violate worker safety policies or excuse pollution as obstructive invasions of the free market. Business executives who defraud their company's customers tell themselves that they are just doing what their boss tells them to do. Surveys have shown that many executives believe that unethical, or even illegal, behavior is the norm in their industry, making it easier to justify their behavior. The motivation behind white-collar crime is simply – to make money, but this can also be influenced by competition between leaders in their quest for wealth and status – which could be linked to strain theory. Society views greed and material competition as innate human characteristics – these characteristics being a key element of white-collar crime, along with a massive fear of failure. There are external factors to consider; such as the possibility of criminal behavior in a specific area, the chances of being arrested – deterrence theory is not a strong theory for white collar crime because the people who commit them are rarely held accountable responsible and the sanctions are often less severe. These factors refer to controversial social norms that treat these crimes – sometimes serious – differently from any other crime. To combat white-collar crime, a profound cultural change is required. It is difficult for law-abiding citizens to understand why people commit crime; particularly heinous crimes, such as rape or murder. Every human being has the capacity to engage in delinquent behavior, but only a certain number of individuals commit a crime. It is difficult to establish a solid relationship between.