Decision Making by Criminals

Criminal Decision Making The question as to whether criminal decision making is a reasonable process is a subject of enthusiastic discussion when a person insists that the crime is an option of selection. Prior to the classical school, crime was thought of as a product of supernatural phenomena of demons, wizards, ghouls, and other creatures. The era before the classical era called classical school can be divided into two parts. Everyone deals with infringement of rights before the state intervenes in private affairs.

The general criminal theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) provides an exclusive and reactive interpretation of the criminal decision-making process. According to general criminal theory, criminal decision is a function of two factors, low self-control and opportunity. It is highly likely that individuals with low self-management who have opportunities for crime are involved in criminal acts. General theory helps to clarify some important aspects of crime and crime, but that fact that many criminals intentionally seek and create rather than wait for criminal opportunities to be realized It does not take into consideration. (Albanese, 2000). This is why the general theory of crime is not a general theory, but one of the reasons for the author's argument.

Corresponding author: Glenn · D · Walters, Kutstown University, 15200 Kutztown Rd. , Pennsylvania, Kutztown, 19530, USA. E-mail: walters@kutztown.edu

The viewpoint proposed in this paper is beyond the viewpoint of exclusive reactive crime decision-making provided by general theory, and the viewpoint of exclusive active crime decision making generated by social interaction is two It is integration of dimensions. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argues that opportunities are extremely important for criminal decision making, but does not mention that criminals sometimes produce their own opportunities. Teduchi and Felson (1994) argues that criminal decisions are mediated by recognizers, but such arbitration does not take into account the possibility of including multiple recognition aspects. Traditional methods focusing on criminal cases and trying to classify actions as active / tooling or passive / impulsive are inherently flawed.

Corresponding author: Glenn · D · Walters, Kutstown University, 15200 Kutztown Rd. , Pennsylvania, Kutztown, 19530, USA. E-mail: walters@kutztown.edu