Choice Theory and Trait Theory on Crime Control

Understanding both the Trait Theory and the Choice 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. It is also necessary to consider how an attempt to control crime would take place under each theoretical school. To better understand these key points, this essay will explain both theories individually, the affects they have on law implementation, and finally why Choice theory is the most appropriate to consider when attempting crime control and/or reduction.

Traits supply the base from which the range of possible coping choices arises. Trait theory considers that criminal behavior comes from biological or psychological conditions of an individual, which control coping strategies and ultimately results in criminal behavior. This theory has roots in the historical philosophies of Cesare Lombroso and Earnest Hooton. An article in the Federal Bauru of Investigation website (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/august2005/august05leb.htm) briefly describes both theorists. Lombroso theorized that there were common physical traits shared by criminals. He describes criminals based on distinct characteristics in the jaw line, teeth, and nose as well as a common "intracranial feature." It was his opinion that certain people were born criminals. Later Hooton adds that there were characteristics in some individuals that forced them into a life of deviancy. He referred to them as "organically inferior." Trait Theory did not stop here and did continue to involve in later thinkers and philosophies. Further studies on genetic determination of criminal behavior included theories of an extra X and Y chromosome, as well as other inherent possibilities. Additionally these possibilities derived from studies of biochemistry, neuroscience, genetics, and more (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2005, v. 74). As previously stated traits supply the base from which the range of possible coping choices arises, but it is opportunity that supplies the field where the range of resources for coping are supplied. That being said, even if genetic tendencies of deviancy or low impulse exist, there are other factors in determining what makes a criminal. Some of these factors are discussed in the Choice Theory.

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), an online encyclopedia, states that "In criminology, the Rational Choice Theory adopts a Utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice." This is to say that individuals will consider the crime and consequence and weigh the outcome to either participating in the criminal act or not. Two obvious examples of how committing the crime far outweighs not committing it, is where economical and safety needs are not being met. A person may decide to steal food rather than go hungry or steal money from their job rather than go without electricity. On a more serious account, consider battered woman syndrome that may drive a wife to kill her husband rather than fear the next moment in life with him. This theory has roots in the works of early theorists, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The Choice Theory would quite obviously affect how society would deter criminal acts differently than the trait theory.

The use of the Trait Theory in controlling/ or reducing crime would be similar to physical profiling. "Prior to World War I," Henry Goddard was used to profile immigrants arriving on Ellis Island. He was believed to have the ability to judge a person's intelligence level based on their physical characteristics (Goodwin, 2005). This would be similar to the Lombroso and Hooton Theories that there are common physical elements in all criminals. These traits would be what made them criminals and therefore we would be forced to deter criminal activity by intervening based on characteristics alone. The Trait Theory, of course, expanded beyond physical elements and made room for biochemical and psychological similarities. This creates a theory that should be taken into consideration when attempting to understand why an individual becomes a "criminal." Again, traits supply the base from which the range of possible coping choices arises. A child may be born vulnerable or with impulsive tendencies but this alone does not make them an unchangeable criminal. Thus this theory alone can not be considered when controlling/ or reducing crime.

Taking the choice theory into account is taking into consideration the next stages in life. The stages that combined with natural temperament and genetic makeup can contribute to the choice to act as a criminal. As stated above this theory maintains that a criminal, under careful consideration, chooses crime because it far out weighs the alternative. The individual's life is in such a place that the consequence to the crime appears to be worth the risk. Under this school of thought crime deterrent would be a punishment that is less appealing. This would deter the accused criminal from repeating the offense and deter others from attempting criminal activity. The flaw here is that it does not adopt the idea that was discussed previously, in that there may be genetic characteristics that inhibit individual ability to reason. And the flaw in that though some people choose to act criminally it is not that the rest of society is choosing not to. For example the employee that steals from work to buy groceries, considered and weighed options, ultimately choosing crime. This does not determine that the person who does not steal from work to buy groceries chose to not act criminally; rather they never considered it at all. So it is not that society is made up of individuals that either decide to partake in criminal behavior or not. It would also be difficult to implement this theory when attempting to comprehend serial killers and rapists. How can one explain the decision making process that leads to such an act and how is it that the consequence of participating in these acts outweighs the decision not to? This is another example of why one aspect of human behavior does not stand alone when attempting to understand the "whole" person. The choice theory does however, far outweigh the trait theory in attempts to control and reduce crime.

When analyzing the "why" people engage in criminal behavior, the individuals should be considered biologically, socially, and psychologically. Determining all vulnerable characteristics will ultimately result in a system that is able to implement increased preventative services. On the other hand in order to handle the criminal activity already taking place, society must consider that regardless to circumstance an individual that acts criminally chooses to and therefore must be held accountable. The choice theory, delivering harsh punishment, determines that the outcome of the crime can not be more appealing than choosing not to participate in the crime. The choice Theory is the theoretical school of choice, most appropriate when considering how to reduce and or control crime. It is most appropriate to hold individuals accountable for actions rather then for their genetic or chemical makeup.

References

The Federal Bauru of Investigation (2005, August) Theme Based Interrogation. Retrieved February 8, 2007, From FBI Law Enforcement Bulletinv.74 number8 via online access: (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/august2005/august05leb.htm)

Goodwin, C. James (2005) a History of Modern Psychology 2^nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NY

Wikipedia. Rational Choice. Retrieved February 8, 2007, From Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/ modified January 13, 2007.