Criminal acts and choice theories response

Felony and Misdemeanor A principle often mentioned with respect to the degree of punishment to be meted out is that the punishment should match the crime. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed. Criminal justice There are many possible reasons that might be given to justify or explain why someone ought to be punished; here follows a broad outline of typical, possibly conflicting, justifications. Deterrence prevention [ edit ] One reason given to justify punishment [7] is that it is a measure to prevent people from committing an offence - deterring previous offenders from re-offending, and preventing those who may be contemplating an offence they have not committed from actually committing it.

Criminal acts and choice theories response

Consequentialism Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist ones, a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate its deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological theories themselves.

Some consequentialists are monists about the Good. Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons or all sentient beings is itself partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person's share of the Good to achieve the Good's maximization.

Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good.

Criminal acts and choice theories response

None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree that the morally right choices are those that increase either directly or indirectly the Good.

That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not. Consequentialism is frequently criticized on a number of grounds.

Two of these are particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to deontic ethics that is deontology. The two criticisms pertinent here are that consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on Criminal acts and choice theories response other hand, that it is not demanding enough.

The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like this: All acts are seemingly either required or forbidden. And there also seems to be no space for the consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family, friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory Williams On the other hand, consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits.

It seemingly demands and thus, of course, permits that in certain circumstances innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater benefits for others. Consequences—and only consequences—can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others.

A well-worn example of this over-permissiveness of consequentialism is that of a case standardly called, Transplant. A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient whose organs can save the five. In the right circumstances, surgeon will be permitted and indeed required by consequentialism to kill the healthy patient to obtain his organs, assuming there are no relevant consequences other than the saving of the five and the death of the one.

Likewise, consequentialism will permit in a case that we shall call, Fat Man that a fat man be pushed in front of a runaway trolley if his being crushed by the trolley will halt its advance towards five workers trapped on the track.

We shall return to these examples later on. Consequentialists are of course not bereft of replies to these two criticisms.

Idea Behind Classical Theory

This move opens up some space for personal projects and relationships, as well as a realm of the morally permissible. It is not clear, however, that satisficing is adequately motivated, except to avoid the problems of maximizing.

Nor is it clear that the level of mandatory satisficing can be nonarbitrarily specified, or that satisficing will not require deontological constraints to protect satisficers from maximizers. On this view, our negative duty is not to make the world worse by actions having bad consequences; lacking is a corresponding positive duty to make the world better by actions having good consequences Bentham ; Quinton We thus have a consequentialist duty not to kill the one in Transplant or in Fat Man; and there is no counterbalancing duty to save five that overrides this.

Yet as with the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this restriction on all-out optimization of the Good. Yet another idea popular with consequentialists is to move from consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses acts to consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses rules—or character-trait inculcation—and assesses acts only indirectly by reference to such rules or character-traits Alexander Its proponents contend that indirect consequentialism can avoid the criticisms of direct act consequentialism because it will not legitimate egregious violations of ordinary moral standards—e.

Criminal acts and choice theories response

The relevance here of these defensive maneuvers by consequentialists is their common attempt to mimic the intuitively plausible aspects of a non-consequentialist, deontological approach to ethics. For as we shall now explore, the strengths of deontological approaches lie: Deontological Theories Having now briefly taken a look at deontologists' foil, consequentialist theories of right action, we turn now to examine deontological theories.

In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring about. The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some choices are morally forbidden.

On such familiar deontological accounts of morality, agents cannot make certain wrongful choices even if by doing so the number of those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be minimized because other agents will be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful choices.

Criminal Acts and Choice Theories Response

For such deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each agent.

In this sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said to have priority over the Good.Criminal Acts and Choice Responcse Criminal Acts and Choice response 12/12/ Criminal Acts and Choice response The term choice theories better yet known as rational choice theories were developed by DR William Glasser in Criminal Acts and Choice Theories Response Stephanie Bangerter CJS April 7, Criminal Acts and Choice Theories Response The two criminology models that best suits the basic knowledge of law in this country is the classical and neoclassical criminological theories.

Choice Theories of Crime When it comes to crime causation and the study of criminology, it is important to understand and define the distinction between the various theories behind the act and behavior of crime .

Criminal Acts and Choice Responcse Criminal Acts and Choice response 12/12/ Criminal Acts and Choice response The term choice theories better yet known as rational choice theories were developed by DR William Glasser in May 06,  · CJS Entire Course For more classes visit torosgazete.com CJS Week 1 Checkpoint Criminal Acts and Choice Theories Response CJS Week 1 DQ 1 and DQ 2 CJS Week 2 Checkpoint Crime Reporting and Rates Response CJS Week 2 Assignment Criminal Justice System Paper CJS Week.

Write a to word response in which you describe choice theories and how they relate to torosgazete.combe the common models for society to determine which acts are considered torosgazete.comn how choice theories of crime affect society.

Theories of Crime