1. Emotions can play a complex role in rational choice theories. Rational choice theory assumes that people make decisions by logically weighing costs and benefits. However, emotions can inform preferences, guide decision-making, signal commitment, and affect one’s perception of risks and rewards. They help to shape what a person values and prefers therefore influencing their desired outcomes. Certain emotions also come with a moral compass of sorts like feelings of guilt or love which can cause individuals to commit to actions that may be perceived as irrational. Biosocial theories present significant policy implications and potentials of misuse. When biological predispositions are detected early in life, policies may emphasize early childhood intervention like parental training or cognitive development initiatives. Policies could also advocate for including mental health screenings, psychological assessments and more into the criminal justice system to help better address biologically rooted factors. One major way that biological theories are misused is with the false belief that biology alone can determine behavior, particularly deviant behavior. Additionally, marginalized groups who are identified as having higher biological risk factors could face more stigmatism and discrimination.
2. rational choice theory assumes criminals assessed the benefits and risks associated with their potential crime and rationally chose to follow through. However, it is impossible to be completely certain an individual utilized reason alone, not considering emotion, when determining why a crime was committed. There are theorists, like Agnew and Hirschi, who touched on the influence emotions, like anger or parental affection, have on social behavior.
Still, it wasn’t until Bouffard et al. (2000) outlined three ways emotions impact criminal inclinations.
There are negative emotions like fear or guilt that can deter someone from committing a crime, while positive ones like excitement and joy can encourage criminal behavior. Criminal acts can also be influenced by various emotional states. If someone is deeply depressed, they may turn to food or drugs. If someone feel embarrassed or humiliated, they may respond with violence. The intensity of the emotion clouds the judgment of the individual and they may react in an abnormal manner. Just like social Darwinism and other evolutionary theories, it is difficult to use or determine if you should use biological characteristics or abnormalities to evaluate criminality. If someone has a psychological disorder, does that necessarily mean they are more inclined to commit crime or that it would completely explain their criminality? How would you explain crime committed by those without any biological or social deficiencies? Many criminological theorists voiced major concerns they had with these new biosocial approaches. There were feminist theorists that believed these approaches could further reaffirm the patriarchy and some strain theorists believing blame could be shifted to the victims. Control theorists were concerned social roles would appear less influential in shaping social behavior. Finally, conflict theorists emphasized the risks associated with straying away from criminal law and centering laws handed down by whoever represents whatever biological characteristics are socially accepted at the time.
Critical theorists added to that concern by including the minimization of socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence crime as well.
