According to Fadaei-Tehrani and Green (2002), regarding the issue of rational choice theory, it is noted that the offender makes a conscious decision to commit a crime using calculated risks. In doing so the offender takes a close look at the risks and the rewards of the crime being planned to be committed that is more often considered in terms of economic prospects (Fadaei-Tehrani and Green, 2002). The main reason for that is consideration of the economic model which is due to the fact that most of the offenders take a look at the economic benefits that they are likely to get and the probable options of making better living by executing their plans.
The motivational factor of such crimes is the economic prospects. With such a motivation, it becomes likely that the offenders might utilize intimidation tactics or near-stealth tactic to execute their plans. They take time to plan how to execute their plans. Also, they plan mostly the clarity of their escape routes.
In classical school of criminology, there is also the issue of punishment that is raised (Finnane, 2006). There is in-depth consideration of the punishments that the criminals are likely to be given in the event that they are caught (Finnane, 2006;Day and Vandiver, 2000). Offenders are more likely to involve themselves in criminal activities where they are likely to get smaller sentences in a court of law than gross crimes that have bigger sentences.
For those who engage in gross crimes, they are more likely to do so as a large group like in the case of Nazi genocide against the Jews for which the society was made to believe that harassing, deporting, robbing and killing of Jews was an acceptable thing (Day and Vandiver, 2000).
According to Fords (2011), biological positivism is a trait that is evident in that it makes the offenders or some regions to be more prone to crimes. Travis (2001) notes that the best way to understand biological positivism is to first have the most fundamental definition of a crime for which it is described as the social construct that is unconditionally meant to keep changing over time. This change happens across all cultural divides, just that the level of intensity varies greatly from one cultural setting to another (Travis, 2001).
In Positivism, there is quantification of behavior which means that there is a higher probability of determining the likelihood occurrence of an offence and thus aid in proactive defense against the offense either directly from the offenders’ side or from the target’s side. Thus, there is the possibility of reducing the occurrence of offences (Travis, 2001).
This approach, however, suffers some challenges in that there is a higher possibility of scientific neutrality that is evidenced in the research (Travis, 2001). For example, it is clear that any research work that is done is mainly based on the observers’ perspective.Therefore, there is a possibility of the observer tainting the findings as well as a possibility of findings digression from the actual data as it should be done (Travis, 2001). Furthermore, the language that is used in the expression of the findings is observer oriented and thus influences the findings as per what the observer wants them to be (Travis, 2001).
There is also the possibility of the determinism of the behavior in that there is disregard of moral choices by the observer as well as the creativity of the offender (Travis, 2001). This in essence shows why there is criticism of the theory which cannot quite be relied upon to provide the necessary data as required.
Reintegration shaming is a concept that has been in application in different forms in the past and more so in the less developed African regions as well as the Asian region (Sakiyama, 2011). Reintegration shaming is a concept where there is community mediation of relationship between an offender and a victim or a community that brings about restitution to such a person (Sakiyama, 2011). The application of this method in reintegration of the juvenile to the community brings a lot of benefits. To start with, there is a recorded increase in the level of victim satisfaction (Kim & Gerber, 2011). This is made possible by the positive attitude that the offender acquires that motivates and brings some level of satisfaction to the victim (Kim & Gerber, 2011).
Depending on the kind of offense that the juvenile was charged with, there have been noted different outcomes on the attitudes (Kim & Gerber, 2011). Since the reintegration also includes the active participation of the community, there is a possibility of a change in perception that the offenders might have. For example, instead of the offenders viewing themselves as gross criminals in a fragile society, they are able to view themselves as acceptable members of the society who had once gone wrong but now have changed for the better. This brings about repentance of the offender for the offence that they had done and the offenders even offering to repay the damages that they had caused to the victims or the society (Kim & Gerber, 2011). This, however, is dependent on the degree of repentance in the juvenile offender (Kim & Gerber, 2011). For example, it is noted that in African and Asian communities, the community takes an active role in the reintegration which involves the family, religious organizations and the community at large (Kim & Gerber, 2011: Sakiyama, 2011).
Reintegration is executed through the encounter and amends the process whereby the offender first admits committing the offense and then the offender understands why whatever they did was wrong (Sakiyama, 2011). This then leads to apology for the offense and subsequent quest for behavioral changes (Sakiyama, 2011).
In this gaming scenario, the most applicable crime theory is the rational choice theory of crime causation (Fadaei-Tehrani and Green, 2002). The reason for this is because the player makes rational decisions in the game on how best to execute the animosity in the national school. There is a famous Chinese saying that says, “what I hear I forget, what I see I remember, and what I do I understand”. Children in school are good at experimenting with whatever they find to try. The national school shooting tour 2012 offers the best opportunity to load a gun and execute the plans. For example, in a scenario where a group of criminally motivated school children or academically dissatisfied children who would like to stop the progress of a school, the game gives multiple options on how to execute their intentions to destroy the school. Given a very applicable and well versed scenario, schoolchildren understand their learning environment much better while playing the game only raises their zeal to actuate the virtual warfare in their learning environment.
Rationally there are children that have higher inclination to getting more challenging environments to commit crimes on a higher level and this game is giving the children that opportunity to play and weight their options of the possibility of executing their plans. Since their curiosity has been raised, some might even try to see how far the virtual war can be taken in actual settings.
The routine activity theory is similar to the occurrence of a criminal activity related to the kind of work that an individual is used to doing on a day to day basis and the surrounding environment (Sutton, 2011). The routine activity theory is dependent on the prevailing pattern of activities that happen in the social divide during interaction on a daily basis as noted by Sutton (2011). For example, from mid twentieth century, it has been noted that the amount of hours that black women spend at home has greatly decreased and consequently the children have less time for interacting with their mothers (Sutton, 2011).
This is related to the lesser number of role models that are available to the children and thus high likelihood to be involved in criminal activities (Sutton, 2011). This leads to social disorganization that raises opportunities for criminals to execute their options (Sutton, 2011; Zimmermann, 2007).
Although the theory has some grounds and meets some fundamental scientific validation processes like the answering the questions of What? When? Why? and the like, it fails to pass the test for a ‘good’ theory since it is hard to quantify the claims of the theory. The theory is mostly based on a generalized approach instead of actual process. The theory also fails the test the possibility of the theory predicting the possible outcome of a crime in a given region and thus it does not quite qualify to be a scientific theory and needs refining to adhere to scientific level.
It has been noted that the anomie proposed by Merton is mainly based on the theoretical approach and misses the in-depth causative agents of the crime (Orcutt, 1983; Mizruchi, 1967). For example, on the one hand, in Merton’s anomie, it is noted that the theory focuses on suicide, crime and delinquency from a general point of view (Orcutt, 1983; Mizruchi, 1967). On the other hand, considering the anomie by Durkheim, there is exemplification and quantification of the actual causes of these problems. This is evident where Durkheim details the cause of suicide rates as being attributed to egoism, anomie, and altruism as well as fatalism which individually can cause suicidal thoughts (Orcutt, 1983; Mizruchi, 1967).
Durkheim supports his claims by application of historical data in the analysis and verification of the claims while in Merton this is exempted in the proposition (Orcutt, 1983; Mizruchi, 1967). Durkheim also includes the notion of the economic status of the surrounding to be a contributor to raise the criminal activity and intents as well as rapid shift in the economy that brings imbalance and, therefore, chaos. For example, after the occurrence of hurricane Katrina there was a noted increase in criminal activities since the economic prospects of the region changed too rapidly.
According to Taylor (2001) and Jensen (2003), modern social disorganization is a criminological theory that attributed the current criminal variations that are experienced as well as delinquent behaviors in changing times. This occurs within stipulated territories especially those that are prone to criminal activities due to the likelihood of decrease in risk of being caught on the part of the offender and the likelihood of higher rewards after successful criminal activity (Taylor, 2001; Jensen, 2003).
Modern social disorganization is happening more often due to the fact that people are working long hours and earning higher incomes with others having more than one job to help meet their needs. In return these people become better targets as they arrive home late and at times without company thus becoming the best prey to hunt.
Traditional or classical social disorganization has been found only in women spending the day out of home while their children are left alone during the day. Currently, some parents arrive home when the children are fast asleep and leave home before they wake up and thus no role models are available to coach them in mannerism. Understanding modern social disorganization will help to understand the current increase in crimes in the urban areas like in big cities since there is less time spent with the children. They spend time with fellow children who spoil one another and engage in drug and substance abuse that might be a prerequisite of criminal activity participation.