Theories on the Reasons Behind an Individuals Pronouncement To Commit Crimes

Classical theory

The inception of classical theory dates back to the 18^th century. This was a time when other theories of crime were nonexistent, or being designed. Different philosophers and economists gained interest in understanding the reasons behind an individuals pronouncement to commit crimes (Hagan, 2010). They also sought to understand the reasons attributed to the intensity of punishments. Such punishments were extremely harsh thus, the invention of theories deducing the factors behind the adoption of such inhumane tendencies. The pioneers of the theory demanded the adherence to humanity concerns whilst initiating punishment. They appealed to the authorities to exude high levels of rationality whilst handling the offenders (Hagan, 2010). The theory pushed for the formation of a hierarchical procedure for punishments, which is formulated alongside the use of well-outlined methods.

Evidently, the austerity of the punishment ought to be commensurate with the enormity of the misdemeanor. Additionally, the proportion of times the offender commits similar crimes play a crucial part in deciding the intensity of the punishment. The classical theory also focuses on the appropriateness of considering death penalty. It stipulates that the death penalty ought to be adopted basing on the magnitude of the crime rather than the frequency of crime (Siegel, 2008). The theory pushed for the enactment of laws regulating the powers held by judges, and demands that any punishment awarded ought to match the offense. Additionally, the classical theory stipulates that human beings commit crimes after engaging in careful and rational thoughts on the resultant dangers or the benefits. Once the benefits overshadow the dangers, they make decisions whether to commit or avoid the crimes.

The classical theorists argued for fairness on issues related to punishments. However, they accomplished this by changing the draconian punishment that was manifest. Siegel (2008) argued that, the tendency of viewing the crime as beneficial ought to be sublimed by regulations that inflate the intensity of the involved risks. He further reasoned that, in counteracting crime, the pain associated with the punishment needs to be appropriate. He was against the idea of punishing all felonies through death sentences basing on the classical theory (Siegel, 2008). However, the theory exudes weaknesses as advocated by contemporary criminologists who believe that, it focuses majorly on criminal law, upon comparison to the offenders behaviors. Additionally, they highly regard it as basing on philosophical speculations rather than sound evidence from outstanding principles.

In their effort to refute its application, such theorists believe in acquiring or defusing the judges power during prosecution (Hagan, 2010). They also argue that, the theory fails to tackle issues pertaining to irrationality and diverse unconscious factors, which are motivating elements that contribute to criminal acts. The theory best explains the criminal behavior since it illustrates how people end up committing crime. It affirms that, criminals take measured risks by weighing the pleasures emanating from the crime against the pain. If the benefits surpass the pains, they end up committing the crime and vice versa.

Explanations on whether the answer differs for violent or property crime

This theory fails to differentiate the answers since it attaches immense significance to all crimes. This is true since a criminal taking part in a violent or property crime, will mull over the benefits derived from the deed. This means that he takes a step that determines whether he would embrace the crime or not (Siegel, 2008). Evidently, the criminal expects to gain from the act, whether he engages in property or violent crimes.

Explanation for whether the answer differs for juvenile or adults

The reason for juveniles involvement in criminal activities does not differ from the adults. This is because; all the individuals assess the postulated benefits that come with the crime. However, juveniles might fail to comprehend the pain associated with the criminal act due to ignorance. This means that they are likely to regret their acts once condemned (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2010). As illustrated by evidence, different behaviors relate to the criminal acts practiced.

The three policies needing changes

As indicated in the neoclassical theory, I would recommend changes in the classical theory argument. This postulates that the most significant factors, which criminals consider before committing any crime, incorporate the assessments of the benefits and the pain. As indicated by Hagan (2010), other factors such as ecological and psychosomatic processes extensively influence peoples decisions thus determining their participation in crime. It is also evident that offenders get involved in a crime after determining the possibility of capture and incarceration after the act. Secondly, I would champion for a change in the theorys statement. This postulates that punishments ought to be accorded, basing on the magnitude of the crime (Hagan, 2010). This is because focusing on the measure of pain or the profits resulting from the crime, leaves the judges powerless in initiating corrective actions.

Conclusively, the third policy, which ought to be changed, entails the modification of the ruling basing on the frequency of the crime. This as unfair since treating individuals differently regardless of the fact that they have committed similar crimes is erroneous. I opt for the modification of such policy, thus giving the two cases equal credence.