Sociology

Punishment, though necessary for reducing crimes, should always be proportional to the degree, to which the criminal acts infringe the sanctity of possessions, human well-being and the welfare of the state. It is in punishing perpetrators of crimes that the concepts of positivism and rational choice come into play. For the punishment to be in line with the social contract, it should be fair as to the magnitude and the cause (Nichols, 2006). The two concepts are contradictory as to what motivates criminal activities and which of the two is the most effective in determining the kinds of punishment to be administered to the perpetrators, and which one is the best in preventing or at least reducing criminal activities. The two concepts clash and cause serious debates as to which is the best one. The paper discusses the two concepts in details and their impact on criminology (Gomory, 2001).

Concept of positivism  
Positivism argues that the human nature is not always constant, but is also determined by the society. The positivism theory sees people as adapters and responders to social circumstances. In the positivism theory it is important to note that for every human being, there is a group, for which he or she is an associate. The group acts in either a normal, that is, the right way, or abnormal, that is, the wrong one, depending upon the social values of the group. Positivism is concerned with deviance and criminal, environmental and psychological reasons for a persons failure to adopt the norms of a system the majority are supposed to follow (Fruehwald, 2001).  Positivism in criminology, therefore, has a universal view of a society consisting of normal people, who follow the norms that are agreeable to the society. Deviants are under-socialized or pathological individuals, who are not able to take their place in central grounds of a health society. With this understanding, it will be easier to handle criminal activities in society. Positivism will, therefore, deal with the causes of criminal acts collectively, unlike the rational choice, dealing with an individual. Social reaction against deviants will, thus, be a problem, only if the law enforcement and the judiciary system are not efficient in their role of representing the collectivity as a whole. In positivism, the main focus of criminology should be on the criminal actor, the environment, rather than focusing so much on the law. Positivists reject completely the notion of a rational man being able to exercise the free will. The prime task of positivism in criminology is the complete elimination of crime therefore, positivism advocates therapy as a way of achieving this (Gomory, 2001).

One of the supporters of the positivism adaptation in criminology, Enrico Feri, argues that this is not merely a movement but as a Copernican transformation of human beings conception of crime and human nature. Positivism viewed its role as the methodical removal of the free will school of thought and replacing it with the science of society, taking by itself the role of crime eradication (Gomory, 2001).  Most psychological and sociological studies on crime and deviant acts have been done the positivist framework. In the last fifty years or so, the United States supreme courts have adapted themselves to the positivist view of criminology. The courts do not identify the constitutional limits on the view of a crime. For instance, the legislature does not define offences based on the mental state aspect. They judge certain actions as criminal without investigating the mental state of the perpetrator, which could have led him to committing the crime (Hartung  Blustein, 2002).  

Many people opposing positivism in criminology argue that the concept is more value-loaded than objective. The positivism theory tends to deal with the social make-up instead of facts that can be proven scientifically. Positivism deals with negative environmental persuasions that lead to criminal activities.  Some of the negative environmental influences are alienation, deprivation, overpopulation and being exposed to deviant cultures (Fruehwald, 2001).

Rational choice concept
The concept of rational choice is founded on the investigation of human behavior developed by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham (Neyhouse, 2002). The key points of the theory are human beings act rationally rationality in human beings means calculation human beings select their behaviour, whether compliant or deviant, out of their rational calculation the key element of calculation engages a cost benefit analysis the choice made, with all other conditions constant, will be aimed at making the individuals benefits maximum the choice can be handled by the perception and comprehension of the possible punishment that will result from an act proven to be in contrast with the social contract. the states has the responsibility of observing order and the common good by creating a system of laws and the swiftness, severity, and certainty of the punishment are the basic aspects in comprehending a laws capability in controlling human behavior. In the view of the rational choice theory, crime can be prevented or reduced through policies that can convince criminals to resist criminal activities, holdup their acts, and keep away from a particular target (Hartung  Blustein, 2002).

The rational choice theory underlines the criminal as a decision maker.  The rational choice theory argues that crimes can be committed if the advantages to the offender looks greater than the risks involved that is, if the pleasures seems greater than pains. The theory assumes that the criminal seeks to benefit from the criminal behaviour. It involves making choices and decisions regardless of the consequences. The offenders cognitive capabilities show limited rather than normative rationality. The theory exhibits greater logic, because most of the criminal activities committed can be explained by rational choice. The formulation of the theory was based on the additional promise that the processes of decision making and the factors considered in the making of the decision are likely to differ at the various stages of the process and among different criminal activities (Fruehwald, 2001).

The rational choice theory argues that every criminal activity can be elucidated by rational choice. For instance, robbery is done so that the offender can acquire items that can be sold for financial gain (Nichols, 2006). To prove that the crime is committed out of personal choice, the offender in most robbery cases come armed with protective items like gloves and masks so as to conceal their identity. They also appear with means to hide and carry the items, like bags or get away car. The argument in the rational theory is that every crime is premeditated and predetermined, which is evident to a rational decision making. The offender usually selects his victim, the place and location where the crime will be conducted, and the time to do so (Neyhouse, 2002).

Critics of the rational choice theory argue that it is the determined nature of the moral sentiment that that determines the range of moral choices. Thus, hey argue that it is more advantageous for the criminal justice system to base their ruling on the positivism concept.  The rational choice theory fails to put into consideration other causes of criminal activities, especially, as related to the social well-being of the perpetrator. There are other conditions, like deprivation, broken families, poor living conditions and underprivileged childhood that can cause a person to turn into a criminal (Hartung  Blustein, 2002).  

Conclusion
The two concepts have a positive impact upon criminology to a certain extent.  The negative aspects of one of the concept can be solved by applying the other. Law enforcement and the judiciary system should find a way to strike the balance between the two concepts. They should strive to find a way of coming up with a system that will borrow the positive aspects of each of the two concepts. This will provide a system that will be very strong in handling crime.