How Might Different Types of Offenders Best Be Deterred From Crime

Therefore with the use of rational theory, criminologists often assume that those who commit criminal acts had the option of rationalizing their decision against those of the basic social norms. For one reason or another they chose to commit a crime but again, this theory depicts the fact that it was their choice, they were not forced to do so (Blossfield &amp. Prein 1998, p.5).
Of course, rational theory is neither a sociological nor a criminological theory that can be used to analyze all offenders because there are relative differences between individuals, even those who commit crime. Let’s take for instance criminals who engage in white collar crime. This form of crime is concisely opposite crimes that include acts of brutal murder, rape, and kidnapping, etc. The reason this is stated is this form of crime takes initiative on the criminals’ part and in fact they rationalize their choices before they ever break the law. Therefore, because these types of offender’s are generally rational in their though processes and in their actions to engage in criminal activity, law enforcement would have to use a varied deterrence technique to try and sway and deter this types of offenders from repeating their criminal intentions and also to prosecute them correctly through the judicial system (Uggen &amp. Piliavin 1998). It has been found that because these types of offenders think logically and weigh the consequences of their actions the more traditional forms of law enforcement work well to keep them and others from becoming repetitive in their criminal attitudes. Law enforcement officials have learned that when a white collar criminal is prosecuted and punished severely for their actions it often acts as a deterrent in society, such as with the Martha Stewart case and the issue with falsifying documents on the stock market, etc. Once one white collar crime is prosecuted correctly it minimizes how many more there would be to follow, there is no doubt about this.
In cases of criminal violence and murder, the use of deterrents would of course not be the same as the one’s used for white collar crime, simply because of the variations to the types of crime in particular. For example, prosecution of someone who commits murder is definitely not enough of a legal influence to prevent other violent offenders from committing this same form of crime. What it can do however is prevent that one individual from going out and committing the same type of violent act, but again it won’t persuade other offenders who have not been caught and faced punishment themselves (Uggen &amp. Piliavin 1998). However, for those criminals who don’t seem to be able to rationalize their own actions it has been found that the best way to deter them from being repeat offenders is by incarceration because releasing them back into society has shown that there is a great risk of them repeating their actions. This is all in how they view their behavior and don’t think logically such as how an offender of white collar crime analyzes their own actions. White collar offenders weigh the pro’s and cons of their actions that are going to take place. If they find that the consequences will be harsher than any benefit that they could gleam out of breaking the law then they simply won’t do it. Violent offenders do not rationalize in this manner. They are more