ABSTRACT
One of the most widely debated premises underlying attempts to explain crime, among both criminologists and lay persons, is the role of choice. At issue is the degree to which offenders are or are not driven by rational decision making. Both deterrence theory and other explanations falling within the larger rational choice paradigm assign a greater role to rational decision making on the part of the criminal offender than do other approaches. Both are rooted in utilitarianism , the notion that public policy decisions should maximize pleasure, while minimizing pain among the general citizenry. The assumption of rational calculation among criminals is oftentimes viewed as being directly at odds with other theories of crime, although most contemporary criminologists envision rationality as falling more on a continuum than in a dichotomy. Moreover, the value of merging different perspectives (theoretical integration) has increased substantially in recent years.
