The Rational Choice Theory

Paper Summary:

The paper provides a brief definition of the rational choice theory and argues that the theory, while plausible, is far too laden with masculine, patriarchal assumptions to be an effective explanation for female crime. The paper shows how females have been constrained historically by patriarchal forces and concludes that this is sufficient proof that the theory functions better as an explanation for male criminal behavior than for female criminal behavior.

From the Paper:

"Simply put, rational choice theory holds that criminals are rational or "purposive" actors who calculate the relative benefits and costs of committing an act and make a decision which they believe will maximize the utility of their (criminal) actions. According to at least one online source, rational choice theory also posits that the alternatives available to any actor or group of actors is necessarily constrained by the environment and by the institutions within which they make their decisions. In the end, it appears as though rational choice theory posits that criminals select certain victims and/or certain types of crime because they feel the reward is sufficient to justify the risk or the risk is low enough that the "lure" of the reward becomes over-mastering (O'Connor 2005)."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Anderson, Elizabeth. (2001). Should feminists reject rational choice theory? In Louise Anthony and Charlotte Witt (eds.), A Mind of One's Own, 2nd Edition (pp.369-97). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Gottfried, Heidi. (1998). Beyond patriarchy? Theorizing gender and class. Sociology, 32(3): 451-68.
• O'Connor, Tom. (2005). Choice theories in criminology. Choice Theory. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from <http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/301/301lect02a.htm>

More papers on The Rational Choice Theory:

• Essay # 56660 : "The Rational Choice Theory"
• Term Paper # 93134 : "The Rational Choice Theory"
• Essay # 32500 : "Rational Choice Theory and Post-Modernism"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: