Fluent Essays

Topic is below. I only need two responses to the attached document. Do not reply to the professor. My post is the last one on here.Media ToolWatch the video Joyce Mitchell: ‘I Deserve To Be Punished’ For Helping Inmates Escape | TODAY (Links to an external site.)1. How would rational choice theory explain Mitchells behavior?2. Do you think that Mitchell was rational when she committed the crime? law___discussion_board.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview • Collapse SubdiscussionSusy Medina Susy Medina MondayMay 18 at 4pm Manage Discussion Entry Susy Medina Professor Corbett-Carter Criminology-SOC-2220-OL May 18, 2020 WEEK 4: Discussion Board https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDH1I98UU8c&list=LLDJGcciXHoQGdj15NjvOt3 Q&index=168 (Links to an external site.) 1. How would rational choice theory explain Mitchells behavior? 2. Do you think that Mitchell was rational when she committed the crime? Answers As mention by one of the directors of the parole board, before she applied for it three times before being accepted and then release on February 2020. The inmate Michells was considered “emotionally unstable” to be reinserted into society. I will apply the rational choice theory on the escape inmates instead of her, since there is no rational possible theory apply to it, and I will continue explaining why? For her I will apply theories of victimization, based on vulnerability for a possible sextortion, or manipulation under the same. (Siegel, 2019-2017, pg. 77, pg. 78). As she became a target for the escapees’ purposes. she was induced into a romantic? sexual? relationship, for trust and complicity, which no rational of risk on being discover or caught in action, since she was the one with the most at risk, I will call this simple pure irrational, stupidity, and proved of it was her speech to the judge at her sentencing, that if she could, she will take it all back. That came after her delusional fairytale bubble burst into reality of becoming an accomplice, and being charge with contraband, a first degree felony, and criminal facilitation on a fourth degree. The only rational choice theory, that I will apply will be on specific offense, since she had plans to escape with them, providing also the getaway car, and run away. (Siegel, 2019-2017, pg. 102). Also, as theory of structural crime for peers and guardianship, on a base theory of an emotional relationship with one of the escapees. (Siegel, 2019-2017, pg. 103). There was no need for excitement and trills, since their purpose was not hers, until she got involved, furthermore no economic need, or competence and experience. The only comparison will be slightly on theories of crime of passion, on fear to lose a partner, or with no opportunity to reflect on what is happening. WC: 314. Source: Siegel, Larry J., Criminology: The Core, 7th Edition, 2019, Cengage Learning, 20 Channel Center Street, Boston, MA 02210, USA, [VitalSource Bookshelf]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDH1I98UU8c&list=LLDJGcciXHoQGdj15NjvOt3 Q&index=168 (Links to an external site.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion (Links to an external site.) - https://abcnews.go.com/US/joyce-mitchell-set-prison-release-years-helpingconvicted/story?id=68789748 (Links to an external site.) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dannemora-prison-seamstress-whohelped-2-convicts-escape-released-early-n1131746 (Links to an external site.) ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionProfessor Carter Professor Carter TuesdayMay 19 at 12:14pm Manage Discussion Entry Susy, Thanks for beginning this weeks discussion. Rational choice theory basically suggest that offenders choose to commit crime. Mitchell chose to become involved with an inmate and risk her job. She also chose to break the law. You illustrated how offense specific could be applied to the case. ~Prof Carter ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionPatty Campbell Patty Campbell TuesdayMay 19 at 5:02pm Manage Discussion Entry Hi Suzy My opinion is the opposite. Time and time again, she knew she was breaking the rules and continued to do favors for the inmates to help them escape. Once she was in prison, her mental stability may have been fragile, because after all, she never thought she would end up in prison. Im sure she is deeply depressed over her choices and the situation. I also believe that if she loved her husband, as the excuse for not going through with assisting in the escape, she would not have gotten involved from day 1. I still dont understand what the point of killing her husband if there was no love in the inmate relationship. Again, she could have taken her husband and gone to authorities to report what was going on and chose not to. Patty ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionStephen Giskus Stephen Giskus TuesdayMay 19 at 6:51pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Susy, I agree with your posting and very well explained. She did say in court that if she could she would take it all back. I do not think she would. I believe she acted based on he sexual emotions and even feelings towards those inmates who of course saw an opportunity to take advantage and they did. She knew the consequences but it did not stop her desires. She went out her way for those inmates showing that she had strong feelings and commitment towards their intent. She of course realized at the end that their intent was not about her anymore. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionCherol Ashman Cherol Ashman ThursdayMay 21 at 1:17am Manage Discussion Entry Hi Susy I beg to differ a bit. Even though Mitchell was in a vulnerable state of mind thinking that her husband no longer loves her, she knew well that she was about to break the law. At first, she knew she was crossing the line, yet she continued and flirted with these inmates. Based on e-Text pg 114 on General Deterrence, Mitchell had selfinterest, rational, and reasoning why she violates the law and she did not fear the consequence of her crime. Hence, she said she deserves to be punished. C. Ashman ReplyReply to Comment ▪ Collapse SubdiscussionMartnia Montalvo Martnia Montalvo YesterdayMay 22 at 7:49pm Manage Discussion Entry Hi Cherol, I totally agree to what you just said. She knew but she didnt care, just wanted the attention that she was missing from her husband. This is why she continued to flirt with these inmates. She got what she deserve for helping them. ~Nia M. ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse SubdiscussionPatty Campbell Patty Campbell TuesdayMay 19 at 4:56pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello everyone, Rational choice theory would explain Mitchells behavior in that she was making decision after decision to get involved romantically with the inmates (one if not both), and then to assist them in their escape. She said she knew what she was doing was wrong which is ultimately why she did not follow through with her part of the escape plan. She had free will to tell someone in authority and protect her husband but she was looking to appease her own feelings of inadequacy. Because of those feelings, she was easily manipulated by the inmates. Eventually, I believe she weighed the risks against the reward and abandoned her part of the escape. She admitted she was afraid of getting caught through officials checking her bag, but apparently she was not scared enough. I do believe Mitchell was rational when she committed the crime. People told her she was going too far with the inmates and she made the choice to continue. The inmate Matt was a violent criminal and Mitchell knew it but continued to assist him. Up until the date of the escape, she knew that Matt was planning on killing her husband. She had an anxiety attack so severe that she was hospitalized and couldnt show up for the escape. Patty Campbell Joyce Mitchell: There Was Never Any Love With Escaped Inmate. (2015, September 14). Retrieved 2020, fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjpzdTBmCw (Links to an external site.) Joyce Mitchell: ‘I Deserve To Be Punished’ For Helping Inmates Escape | TODAY. (2015). Retrieved 2020, fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDH1I98UU8c&list=LLDJGcciXHoQGdj15Nj vOt3Q&index=168 (Links to an external site.) WC 252 ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionStephen Giskus Stephen Giskus TuesdayMay 19 at 6:46pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Patty, I agree with your posting and yes her emotions and feelings led her into committing more crimes. As you said she was looking to appease her own feelings beyond her wrongful doing. She was definitely manipulated but when i watched the movie, there was moments where she even called and even tried to get their attention. She was of course afraid of getting caught and in the last minute abandoned the inmates after the escape. Overall she acted very rational and know the consequences of her behaviors. She had all the options to stop and do what was right. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionRafael Payano Rafael Payano WednesdayMay 20 at 11:32pm Manage Discussion Entry Hey Patty i agree with you when it comes to Mitchells behavior she knew what she was getting herself into she knew she was committing the crime even before she knew what was going on, and yes she might have been lonely and felt alone but she saved her husband and got those guys free. As well as i agree about her being rational she knew Matts plan once everything came to the light and i can only imagine whatg would have happened if she didnt have that panic attack. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionProfessor Carter Professor Carter ThursdayMay 21 at 1:05pm Manage Discussion Entry Patty, Great explanation about how RCT applies to this case. ~Prof. Carter ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionMartnia Montalvo Martnia Montalvo YesterdayMay 22 at 8:17pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Patty, I agree with the fact, she was making these decision to get romantically involved with the inmates. She wasnt getting attention from her husband. So by doing what she was getting the attention from others. I do feel she weighed the pros and cons of what could happen. But what she felt for them was more and that influenced her to help them. She got what she deserved by all means. ~Nia M. ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse SubdiscussionStephen Giskus Stephen Giskus TuesdayMay 19 at 6:41pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Professor and Classmates, 1. How would rational choice theory explain Mitchells behavior? I have seen the movie to this story and it was really good. Unfortunately the movie portrait her to be an accomplice to their escape and clearly she admits to it. In the E text Part 1, page 12 it states that Rational Choice Theory is the crime a function off a decision-making process in which the would-be offender weighs the potential costs and benefits of an illegal act. This theory explains her thoughts of helping those inmates, she had a lot of times to out way the pros and cons of their close contacts and intent. She knew it was wrong and illegal but yet she continued to do what she did regardless of her rational thinking showing her the cost and punishment. 2. Do you think that Mitchell was rational when she committed the crime? I believe Mitchell was very rational when she committed the crime. She was not forced. When i watched the movie it shows her being pressured into brining the tools and stuff they wanted but she had a rational mind doing so. She acted with a sane and steady mind committing those crimes. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionPatty Campbell Patty Campbell WednesdayMay 20 at 6:33pm Manage Discussion Entry Hi Stephen I will have to watch the movie. I had no idea this was such a big story. There were just too many opportunities for her to do the right thing, yet she chose over and over to do the wrong thing. What Im not sure of is whether or not she really weighed the benefits to the consequences of what she was doing. There are no benefits to living on the run with escape criminals, the potential for prison time, etc. but I suppose her boosted self-esteem from the attention of the inmates was deemed so beneficial that she could not see her way through the consequences. Patty ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionRafael Payano Rafael Payano WednesdayMay 20 at 11:34pm Manage Discussion Entry Hey Stephen i agree with you Mitchell knew it was illegal and she still went forward with it. As well as i agree with her not being forced to do anything, i think she actually was still in love with her husband even though she said she didnt because she still gave up her freedom to save him when committing those crimes. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionCherol Ashman Cherol Ashman ThursdayMay 21 at 1:54am Manage Discussion Entry Hi Stephen, For question number 2 I have to say I am on the opposite side. I do not think she was being rational when she decided to assist these inmate escape. Being an employee of the prisons tailor shop for seven years. She should have known the relevant personnel to report what these inmates were planning. Instead of getting involved to the point where she was allegedly sexually harassed. She had no remorse about what she was doing for them. These were heinous criminal. C. Ashman ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionProfessor Carter Professor Carter ThursdayMay 21 at 1:12pm Manage Discussion Entry Stephen, Great summary of RCT. Glad you saw the movie and was familiar with the case. ~Prof. Carter ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionShabana Shah Shabana Shah YesterdayMay 22 at 1:47am Manage Discussion Entry Hello Stephen, I agree with you, she was not forced=. She knew what she was doing. Her colleges would also tell her she was being too friendly. She made the choice to bring them the drill bit with a sound mind. Although she was threatened that was just a further motivation to help these men get what they needed. ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse SubdiscussionCherol Ashman Cherol Ashman WednesdayMay 20 at 9:36pm Manage Discussion Entry Goodnight Professor Carter, 1. How would rational choice theory explain Mitchells behavior? In Mitchell’s case, her actions were for her own personal interest which caused her to commit a crime. She was not concerned with the severity of her actions as she was too caught up in her emotions. Mitchell was too blind to see what path she was heading down, even after being told what she was doing was a bad idea. These criminals played on her vulnerability to get her to help in their escape without her weighing the potential cost of the illegal acts. o Do you think that Mitchell was rational when she committed the crime? No, she was not. She was in a mood of depression. She felt she needed a sense of belonging because she felt as if her husband no longer loved her. Therefore, when these inmates started to reach out to her she was already vulnerable to their demands. Already incarcerated, how could they have hurt her husband, what they could have probably received was time added to their sentence, by receiving such a threat from an inmate. Referenced Siegel, L. J. Criminology: The Core. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781337670531/ C. Ashman ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionProfessor Carter Professor Carter ThursdayMay 21 at 1:15pm Manage Discussion Entry C. Ashman, Great summary of the case. Rational Choice Theory can also explain her behavior. She considered her options, risk family or not,.. help with escape or not. I have oversimplified the case, but wanted to illustrate how the theory can be applied. ~Prof. Carter Edited by Professor Carter on May 21 at 1:19pm ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionPelar Navarro Pelar Navarro ThursdayMay 21 at 5:10pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Cherol, Great post. I do believe that it can be argued that her actions fall under the guidelines of the rational choice theory. I agree that she was not rational. You made a great point by mentioning that she was depressed which could have altered her ability to be rational. Great post. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionShabana Shah Shabana Shah YesterdayMay 22 at 1:59am Manage Discussion Entry Hello Ashman, I think maybe she could have used being threatened as an excuse to get them these specific items. She didnt have an issue bringing them other things. However, one can argue that the motivation for her to commit the crime was affection. At the end she made that conscious choice to help them. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionYaideliz Acevedo Yaideliz Acevedo YesterdayMay 22 at 9:45pm Manage Discussion Entry Cherol, You did a great job on this weeks discussion board. I do agree with you she was not rational at all. She was in a state where she was not thinking clearly and ultimately those actions that she took to help those inmates escape changed her life forever. In the end they took advantage of the fact that she wasnt in the right state of mind and she let them. ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse SubdiscussionRafael Payano Rafael Payano WednesdayMay 20 at 11:25pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Everyone Rational choice theory explains Mitchells action by knowing it was illegal to bring such things in. She knew that it was a crime but when her husband/family was threaten to be hurt she riskede it all to save them not caring that she would get caught in the process. I believe Mitchell was rational for what was on the table she loved her husband and her family they was used as leverage to get what was needed and it worked. ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionProfessor Carter Professor Carter ThursdayMay 21 at 1:20pm Manage Discussion Entry Rafael, Good overview of the case. ~Prof. Carter ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionPelar Navarro Pelar Navarro ThursdayMay 21 at 5:04pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello Rafael. Great post. I can see why the argument can be made that Michell was rational and was manipulated into helping the prisoners to keep her family safe. If what she is saying is true the rational choice theory can be applied. Great post. -Pilar ReplyReply to Comment o Collapse SubdiscussionYaideliz Acevedo Yaideliz Acevedo YesterdayMay 22 at 9:48pm Manage Discussion Entry Rafael, This is completely different from what I understood of rational choice. But reading your response makes it very clear and straight to the point. I know understand. Thank you for that. It is always great to get to see other classmates responses as it clarifies a lot of misunderstanding one may have if they do not understand. Seeing you post, makes me think about another reason why she did what she did. ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse SubdiscussionPelar Navarro Pelar Navarro ThursdayMay 21 at 5:01pm Manage Discussion Entry Hello class. The rational choice theory is a theory developed by Cesare Beccaria in which the view that crime is a function of a decision-making process in which the potential offender weighs the potential costs and benefits of an illegal act (Siegel, L. J. Criminology: The Core. P. 100). In this theory both free will and rational manner play a role; Free will which means people are able to make their own choices and rational manner meaning people look after their own personal interests. After watching the video with Joyce Michell, I believe the rational choice theory can be applied. If what she claims is indeed true it can be argued that Joyce found that helping the prisoners escape was the rational choice to prevent harm to her family. I would not consider her actions to be rational when she committed this crime. My first reason being that Joyce had free will to deny bringing the prisoners supplies and gifts at any time. Second, it did not seem like Richard Matt made a threat towards Michell’s husband by saying “If you do not help me I will get rid of him”. and third, If Richard Matt did imply that he wanted to get rid of her husband, both Sweat and Matt were serving a term of 25 years to life, by them escaping prison it would make it more possible for Michell’s to be harmed by the prisoners than if she denied to help them escape. -Pilar Siegel, L. J. Criminology: The Core. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781337670531/ ReplyReply to Comment • Collapse Subdisc ... Purchase answer to see full attachment