There is no single answer to the question "Why do people commit crimes?". Do criminals act rationally after weighing the consequences of the crime? Is society responsible for why people turn to crime? Do mental health disorders, neurological conditions or genetics play a role? There are many theories that seek to establish explanations as to whether these acts are intentional or based on circumstances beyond the offenders' control; some of these theories will be explored in this essay. Classicist criminology is based on the idea that people commit crimes because the consequences of their actions are unclear to them. Jeremy Bentham was a key influential figure in classicist criminology and believed that being confident in knowledge of the consequences of committing a crime would act as a deterrent which would ensure rational members of society did not commit it - he stated that criminality resulted from the education of a person rather than being innate, people are rational beings who will try to find pleasure while at the same time trying to avoid pain and that criminals do not have the self-control necessary to influence their passions. This is based on the assumption that humans are rational and evaluate the consequences of their actions before proceeding with them. When applied to the crime committed, the person should weigh the benefits of the crime, such as monetary gain, against the potential punishment: if the latter outweighs the former, then a rational decision would be made not to take part in the criminal activity. Say no. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Rational choice is based, however, on several assumptions: The first is that the offender identifies as an individual, known as “individualism” . The second states that criminals must maximize their goals and, finally, that they are selfish. Emotion plays an important role within rational choice theory: a person's emotional state is an important factor on which rational conduct is based. The anticipated emotional consequences of criminal conduct are one of the benefits that carry weight in rational decision making. The potential emotional costs associated with criminal behavior could prevent the likelihood of criminal behavior. Emotions are central to the psychological process of motivating individuals to pursue their desires. One of the main difficulties with classicist criminology is its insistence on its belief that crime is a rational act based on the calculation of an individual's gain – this is challenged by positivist criminology, Joyce (2012). Deterrence theory believes that people make decisions to obey or break the law after calculating the payoffs and consequences of their actions. People may refrain from committing crimes for fear of being legally punished, which is known as absolute deterrence, or they may limit their criminal activity, which is known as restrictive deterrence. If legal punishments could be certain, severe and swift, this should be sufficient to deter people from engaging in criminal activity. Punishments can be objective; for example, what law officials actually do to punish offenders – and perceived punishments, i.e., potential offenders' perception of what law officials actually do. There are also extra-legal punishments to consider, such as stigma and vigilante justice. There are problems with the concept of free will and choicerational because they cannot account for crimes committed by people who cannot be classified as responsible for their actions, such as people who are mentally ill. People who commit crimes of passion do not act based on any 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 overlooked, Newburn (2009). Positivist criminology argues that a criminal's actions are not motivated by rational choice but are a consequence of factors a person cannot control – so treatment rather than punishment is the correct response to a person's criminality. Positive criminology is based on findings based on scientific investigations, including; biology, sociology and psychology. Lombroso stated that "criminal man's behavior was determined by his biological composition – he said that criminals were individuals who had not evolved at the same rate as beings who do not offend." The hypothesis 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 background makes you a criminal is challenged by the "nature vs. nurture" debate: nurture argues that criminality arises from many factors such as upbringing, economic or social circumstances, or group pressure of peers. Psychological theories suggest that criminal behaviors based on illness of the mind, such as; personality disorders or neurological problems. Freud, whose work pioneered the theory that human behavior is controlled by a process that occurs in the individual's mind, paid particular attention to childhood memories and experiences, particularly traumatic ones. He stated that these memories are stored in the unconscious part of a person's mind and influence his thoughts and behaviors 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 dissuade people from engaging in criminal behavior that benefits them – regardless of the impact this has on others. Merton (1968) suggested a strain theory to explain crime. It states that crime is a consequence of a society that puts increasing pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals when individuals do not have the means to achieve such goals: this leads to tensions that could lead to engaging in criminal activity to achieve unrealistic goals. This can be seen in the modern day in the growing culture of social media, which puts individuals under greater pressure to conform. Drug dealing and prostitution could fit into the stress theory, as a means to gain financial security. Cohen (1950) examined groups using strain theory and stated that those whose social circumstances make it difficult to achieve these norms develop a different sense of moral vision that would be seen by the rest of society as deviant. These groups may behave criminally in an attempt to gain status among members, for example by stealing a car and driving it instead of selling it for profit. Tension theory receivescriticism because it is mainly based on lower class criminals, as these are a group that struggles with resources to acquire their earnings. Strain theory overlooks white-collar crime, even though the white-collar criminal has ample opportunity to achieve results through legitimate and legal means. Merton also neglects the social structure that constitutes the tensions to which individuals who commit crimes are subjected. A strain theory approach again focuses on social disorganization, particularly in communities – it focuses on the importance of the impact of the “neighborhood effect” – the social status and crime rate in a neighborhood have a significant effect on An individual's likelihood of becoming involved in criminal behavior regardless of their socioeconomic status. Community context is a crucial part of why some unemployed and young people living in poverty have a greater need to commit crime 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 been on the rise since the early 2000s. It has been argued that anti-social behavior has been largely dramatized , although, in urban areas, in areas of social housing and social deprivation, concerns about young people committing crimes have been strongly expressed. Opportunity theory is also linked to youth crime – opportunity theory states that making gains in society through legitimate means is impossible and brings together people who have this mentality – particularly youth gangs, who then developed a subculture of delinquency . This subculture is not consistent, as it depends on the criminal opportunities available in each area. In areas where crime and gang activity are widespread – gangs would emerge in that environment – ​​whereas an area without such a criminal structure would be full of gangs competing for control. Deterrence theory believes that people make decisions to obey or break the law after calculating the payoffs and consequences of their actions. People may refrain from committing crimes for fear of being legally punished, which is known as absolute deterrence, or they may limit their criminal activity, which is known as restrictive deterrence. If legal punishments could be certain, severe and swift, this should be sufficient to deter people from engaging in criminal activity. Punishments can be objective; for example, what law officials actually do to punish offenders – and perceived punishments, i.e., potential offenders' perception of what law officials actually do. There are also extra-legal punishments to consider, such as stigma and vigilante justice. When considering the reasons why a person might be driven to commit a crime, it is important to take a broader picture of their life. Joe Geelong's murder has been analyzed using some of these theories: On March 1, 2006, JoeGeeling was stabbed, beaten and then abandoned in a park. An extensive search was launched when Joe, who suffered from cystic fibrosis, was unable to return home from school. His body was found in a nearby park the next day, having been loosely covered by debris. Michael Hamer, a 15-year-old student who attended the same school as Joe, was arrested the same day. It emerged 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 hasmade a sexual advance at Joe, who rejected him and threatened to announce to everyone that Hamer was gay, which enraged the boy, who then attacked Joe with a frying pan and stabbed him sixteen times. He then placed Joe's body in a garbage can and dumped it in a nearby park, Bunyan (2006). During the trial it emerged he had a "sexual obsession" with Joe, although he was not openly gay. Hamer was believed to suffer from an attachment disorder resulting from abandonment as a child by his father. Bowlby (1969) states that children suffering the absence of a parent during childhood can lead to a series of problems in later life: if a child has gone through a prolonged period of separation from his or her caregivers, he or she becomes It's difficult for him to learn how to bond and form relationships as they develop. It is easy for a child to become apathetic and very self-absorbed. These characteristics are also found in children who engage in delinquent behavior. Bowlby states that crime and violence are disorders of the attachment system: children who are not adequately attached to their caregivers may have difficulty caring about the well-being of others and this results from their inability to form bonds. These children are also at greater risk of developing personality disorders, depression and cognitive difficulties. Hamer'strial psychiatrists determined that he suffered from an adjustment disorder. It stemmed from his troubled childhood and affected his mental capacity. His mental capacity was not deemed unstable enough to reduce the crime to manslaughter and Hamer admitted that it was his anger and sexual refusal that led to Joe's murder. He stated that he wanted someone to feel "alone and scared" by sexually abusing him - this could link to an inability to feel empathy or concern for others. Hamer suffered from a sense of shame, perhaps stemming from being abandoned by his father and was further fueled by his quiet nature which led to him being bullied at school – this further reinforces the feelings of abandonment he harbored. Everywhere he turned he was faced with rejection, from his home life, although he had a loving and supportive mother, to school – Hamer could never find a place where he fit in. In psychoanalytic theory; correct socialization is sufficiently suitable to curb the natural drives and impulses that, according to Freud, all human beings have stored in their unconscious. Michael Hamer often spent hours at a time in his bedroom, playing video games and pretending to play alone. Additionally, he had difficulty socializing with children his age and associated with much younger children. This improper 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 as a way to protect himself from Joe revealing his sexuality at school. Although this could also be due to a sense of panic where Hamer saw that killing Joe was his only option, without fully thinking through the consequences. Fear of his bullies - and potentially of his absentee father discovering his sexuality - was not enough to dissuade Hamer from killing him, even with the knowledge that killing Joe's wound would significantly affect his life and that of those around him, as well as Joe Geelong's family. Biologically the act ofHamer could be explained by the lack of emotional maturity in his brain – at 14, the frontal lobe has yet to fully develop, so teenagers are not always able to control their emotional brain – which can lead to risky and impetuous behavior . . Hereditary criminality could not be attributed as a factor in Hamer's case, as his mother was a caring and loving parent and his father, although absent, was a police officer with no history of crime. Likewise, a completely different type of crime can also be considered, which is largely overlooked 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 the purchase of art worth more than $14 million and the unauthorized payment of a commission bank to accompany 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-level businessmen commit money-related crimes, since it is not out of necessity but out of greed. The justice system generally still 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) states that men like Kozlowski commit their crimes because they are able to find ways to justify their behavior to themselves. Embezzlers believe they are simply borrowing money. Executives flouting worker safety policies or justifying pollution as obstructive encroachments on the free market. Business managers who defraud their companies' customers tell themselves that they are simply doing what their bosses ask. Surveys have shown that many executives believe that unethical and even illegal behavior, as standard in their industries, makes it easier to justify their behavior. The motivation behind white collar crime is simply – making money, but it can also be influenced by competition between executives in their pursuit of wealth and status – which could link to strain theory. Society sees greed and material competition as innate human characteristics: these are key elements of white-collar crime, along with the massive fear of failure. There are external factors to take into consideration; such as the possibility of criminal behavior within a specific industry, the chances of getting caught – deterrence theory is not a strong theory for white collar crimes, as the people who commit them are rarely held accountable and punishments are very often less severe. These factors tie into questionable social norms that treat these sometimes serious crimes differently than any other crime. Addressing white-collar crime would require profound cultural change. It is difficult for law-abiding citizens to understand why people commit crimes; particularly heinous crimes, such as rape or murder. Every human being has the capacity to engage in criminal behavior, but only a certain number of individuals will commit a crime. It is difficult to establish a solid relationship between criminal activity and social class, there has been a lot of research into lower class crime and the statistics clearly show – that working class people are more criminal – and there are problems with the statistics themselves. The statistics do not take into account unreported crimes or crimes that do not make it to court. The crimes committed by the classes.