Law & Crime

...

The bounded rationality hypothesis assumes that human information processing limitations place constraints on decision-making processes and is clearly exhibited in this case as the offender says “I was walking up and down the street saying “I’m going to do it, no I’m not, yes I am”. Bounded rationality is evident as the offender is unsure if he is making the correct decision and is questioning his rationality. In this case rational choice theory considers the offenders perspective and how he or she is making sense of his or her world, the offender demonstrated his rational thought process and how he thought of the world as he said “you can read three four five times a day and nothing about anyone being caught”.

The general theory of crime maintains that internal control is a vital component and low self-control is the sole cause of criminal behaviour. Low self-control combined with the pursuit of self-interest causes crime. Throughout the case the Honest Crime it is obvious that the offender doesn’t have low self-control and that the tendency to be impulsive was not what was causing his offences. The offender had the ability to make rational decisions and act based on his desires and needs. The offenders desire and needs stemmed from the loss of his job. For him the rewards associated with robbing the bank outweighed the risks, as he had recently gotten laid off “I was unemployed for a year, and my unemployment pay outs had run out (p. 124)”. Gottfredson and Hirschi propose that low self control is something that develops early in life which is something that does not relate to the offender as he had no record of breaking the law until the age of 35. The offender clearly states that he was intrigued at the amount of robberies taking place and decided to rob the bank as he had lost his job and his unemployment money was running out.

Moreover, in the case I Was A Gunman the rational choice theory is apparent as expressive crime is portrayed. The offender states “You have to commit yourself all the way …you’re ready to kill, you’ve made the decision before you start (p.144)”. The offender has made the decision to be expressive in his behaviour and crime by choosing to hurt somebody if it means he’ll get what he desires. The offender is powerful, greedy and believes he is being rational in his thinking. Nonetheless, the offender is violent and rebellious as he started working his first job at the age of 19 and by the age of 20 was carrying a .38 “my job consisted of packing a .38 and handling things the bouncers couldn’t handle (p.144)”. The use of situational variables in the crimes committed by this offender were exhibited through his choice of using a weapon, he identified himself as “I was a gunman (p.144)”. His characteristics reflected those of a criminal – violent, powerful and rebellious. Rational choice theory considers the offenders perspective and which factors he or she takes into consideration when planning a crime. The offender from the case I Was A Gunman wants his world to be like “I wore tailored made Italian suits, big diamond on the pinky, .38 in the belt and I dined every night”. The offender rationalizes the crimes he commits in his perspective, as he knows his wants and desires are a result of these crimes. Consequently to obtain this lifestyle the offender must continue to commit these crimes, and lead a criminal lifestyle.

The general theory of crime is also very relatable to this case as it shares common characteristics of criminals, it states that criminals need immediate gratification of desires and need to be engaging in acts that excite, thrill and cause them to take risks. The offender in shows his immediate gratification of desires as he states “One time me and my partner had just done a bank … Let’s go…Going to Miami Beach. We stayed a month (p.146)”. He was addicted to the lifestyle that came along with committing crimes; he called it a “trip”. He was instantly gratified and felt that his needs and desires were fulfilled. The money and vacations made him feel powerful and respected. Additionally, the offender felt an exciting thrill – an adrenalin rush, when committing these crimes “from the moment I pull down my hood …The adrenalin rush…It’s a hell of a rush(p.147)”. This feeling excited the offender, yet made him feel in control, powerful and courageous. Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that crime appealed to people who were willing to be physical and risk taking. The general theory of crime is evident throughout this case as the characteristics of those who are deviant and commit crimes are a complete match to the characteristics of the offender in I Was A Gunman.