When it comes to the study of crime, the biggest question on everybody’s mind is often ‘why’. Jack is described by his community as a serial arsonist, he remains remorseless for the crimes he has committed yet he is fearful of the consequences of his actions. Through the introduction and application of the rational choice theory and through the understanding of environmental toxins, this paper will attempt to rationalize the actions of Jack and how these two theories could offer possible explanations for his criminal activity and how these theories could further our understanding of the scenario. Jack’s deviant behaviour can be analyzed through the use of a rational choice framework and through the study of environmental toxins.
The rational
…show more content…
It could be argued that offenders who are charged with arson can be explained through the rational choice framework. Often times, a property crime such as arson is planned and deliberate; fires do not often spontaneously start in the middle of a community. While it may be possible for individuals to accidentally start a fire without the intent of doing so, i.e., lighting a cigarette during a dry season in a forest, but given that Jack is described as a ‘serial arsonist’, it may be a safe assumption that not all, if any, of the fires caused by Jack are by accident and that he is going out of his way to commit arson. In order for an individual to commit arson, they must first decide whether they want to commit the crime and if it is worth it considering the consequences. When considering the consequences, the individual must consider the costs of the act. The cost of the acts could vary such as the opportunity costs of committing the crime, spending times doing something else rather than the commission of the crime, and the material cost of actually carrying out the crime (Prestemon, Butry, & Thomas, 2013, p. 144). After consideration of the consequences and costs of the commission of a crime, and the individual also has to select a location for the crime and gather resources and supplies to commit the crime. If an individual, given all these factors, still decides to act upon it, then it could be said that they weighed the benefits and losses of an act and has chosen that the benefits of committing the crime is greater than the potential losses if they were to be