Can criminals be rational

[Dozyproductions]

You can be a criminal and be rational.

Rational - agreeable to reason.

Reason - to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Logic - conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Valid/Validity -
1. having some foundation; based on truth
2. legally acceptable
3. a. having legal force; effective
b. having legal authority; binding
4. having some force or cogency: a valid point in a debate
5. logic having premises and conclusion so related that whenever the former are true the latter must also be true when the inference is justified by the form of the premises and conclusion alone.


Criminal - a person who has committed a crime.

Crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

Law - the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeing that mob rule chooses representatives that write laws that the mob recognizes, without question, then IMO we indeed have a true form of idiocracy democracy . I don't believe in mob rule and as long as I'm not harming another then being a criminal in the eye of the mob I can indeed still be a rational person.

lol

[smooth]

Yes, but most aren't which is why punishments based on rational choice theory ultimately fail to reduce crime and/or violence

[einhander]

Rational - agreeable to reason.

Reason - to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Logic - conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Valid/Validity -
1. having some foundation; based on truth
2. legally acceptable
3. a. having legal force; effective
b. having legal authority; binding
4. having some force or cogency: a valid point in a debate
5. logic having premises and conclusion so related that whenever the former are true the latter must also be true when the inference is justified by the form of the premises and conclusion alone.


Criminal - a person who has committed a crime.

Crime - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

Law - the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeing that mob rule chooses representatives that write laws that the mob recognizes, without question, then IMO we indeed have a true form of idiocracy democracy . I don't believe in mob rule and as long as I'm not harming another then being a criminal in the eye of the mob I can indeed still be a rational person.

lol

Wow. Just wow.

I bet this thread seemed like a good idea when you thought of it.

[Dozyproductions]

Yes, but most aren't which is why punishments based on rational choice theory ultimately fail to reduce crime and/or violence

Do rules make people want to irrationally want to break them?

Wow. Just wow.

I bet this thread seemed like a really good idea when you thought of it.

haha, for you boo but you did said it was for another discussion. ;)

[einhander]

Quick example, then I'm popping an ambien and going to bed.

I'm hungry and broke. I need to eat. I surmise I can steal a loaf of bread without getting caught. I steal it, eat it, and abscond.

A rational choice.

Rationality, legality, and morality are not the same.

[smooth]

Do rules make people want to irrationally want to break them?



haha, for you boo but you did said it was for another discussion. ;)

Durkheim argued that both following and breaking rules are essential components of society, but I don't think that's what you were asking.

There isn't a direct link between rules, present or absent, and one's rationality. Most criminals are intoxicated and/or suffering from major mental illness. Most street crimes are committed without premeditation.

A few people rationally choose to break certain laws but they're (I guess might as we'll write 'we're) rare.

[ParsedOut]

Quick example, then I'm popping an ambien and going to bed.

I'm hungry and broke. I need to eat. I surmise I can steal a loaf of bread without getting caught. I steal it, eat it, and abscond.

A rational choice.

Rationality, legality, and morality are not the same.

You are confusing a rational choice with a conscious one, as convoluted as Dozy's string of definitions may be, most people would consider a rational decision to be made using reason and morality. Maybe the comment I made that spurred this thread should have been "Criminals are rarely morally rational" when talking about taking girlfriends and kids hostage in a standoff situation.

[smooth]

That's not rational choice. Rational choice is when someone weighs the costs vs benefits of an action. It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

[ParsedOut]

That's not rational choice. Rational choice is when someone weighs the costs vs benefits of an action. It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

Tis your definition, much like morality is in mine. The official answer has to do with "reason" and that can be construed however you like. Whatever, we're back to arguing definitions, this is stupid.

[ST1G]

Wow. Just wow.

I bet this thread seemed like a good idea when you thought of it.

Can we get a sticky on this meme please.

[smooth]

Tis your definition, much like morality is in mine. The official answer has to do with "reason" and that can be construed however you like. Whatever, we're back to arguing definitions, this is stupid.

No, it's not my definition and we aren't arguing definitions. You're wrong, plain and simple, and I'm educating you on the correct usage of rational choice.

Rational choice comes from 18th century classical school. You can read about Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham if you'd like to learn more about the subject. Whether you want to argue with definitions that are nearly three hundred years old is your prerogative but you should at least be aware of what you're arguing against so you don't look like you're just talking out your ass when you're discussing the thing with people who know.

[ParsedOut]

No, it's not my definition and we aren't arguing definitions. You're wrong, plain and simple, and I'm educating you on the correct usage of rational choice.

Rational choice comes from 18th century classical school. You can read about Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham if you'd like to learn more about the subject. Whether you want to argue with definitions that are nearly three hundred years old is your prerogative but you should at least be aware of what you're arguing against so you don't look like you're just talking out your ass when you're discussing the thing with people who know.

I'm arguing modern definitions, not what some guys purported 300 years ago. You can stop "educating" me, it's a waste of your time because I think you're a pompous blowhard and take what you say with less than a grain of salt.

[BraveUlysses]

What? the terms and definitions are still used, whether or not they're 200+ years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory_%28criminology%29

[ParsedOut]

Ok, so we're taking the context of someone being rational to the theory of rational choice? I guess I can see why that's the direction you went with it. Granted, I put the spin of morality on my definition of what makes a rational person, guess that's personal beliefs that don't fit the "theory" you are all referring to. Any way, thanks for the clear explanation Brave. You may be a crass asshole (no offense, lol) but at least you're not constantly looking down your nose at everyone here.

[smooth]

Yes, when someone creates a thread asking about criminality and rational choice then it only makes sense to explain rational choice theory...and it's only like the bedrock of our entire criminal justice system :/

I'm not looking downy nose at you, you simply want to argue everything into the ground instead of learning something every now and then. It's like getting a child to eat Brussels Sprouts.

You also have it backwards. I gave you the names you needed to look up the relevant information and instead of educating yourself you kept arguing about something you were completely uneducated and incorrect about. Then you thanked someone for doing the work you were too lazy to do.

Your behavior of constantly arguing about things you're wrong about and insulting people who bother to politely correct you is being a blowhard and looking down on others. Me taking the time to participate in a thread and post correct information for people to consume is not.