Homicide: First Degree Murder

The most serious and punishable crime someone can commit is first degree murder. The importance of first-degree murder is deciding whether someone deserves the death penalty, or life in prison for the crime that was committed. When a person chooses to commit murder, the deciding factors that make it first degree are if the person deliberately planned, premeditated and willingly acted out the killing of another person. Sometimes first-degree murder is argued to fit justified murder because the defendant can defend his or herself, first degree murder is the most serious homicide offense given that it is premeditated, deliberate, and willful when committing this crime. First degree murder has been on the rise since 2015 with the number of offenders shooting to 17,250 a percentage increase of 8.6 percent. Despite such a trend, first degree murder remains a controversial topic with most people contesting on different elements under which an act should be considered a criminal offense. As such, there is need to define pertinent issues within first degree murder context. This paper gives a clear definition of the concept of first degree murder, the scope of the problem, characteristics of criminal offenders, how rational choice theory relates to first degree murder, its application to criminal justice, and finally how different policies can be adopted following the rational choice theory to combat crime.

There are many different categories of homicide, but they are all charged as different levels of crimes. First degree murder is the most heinous, vicious act of homicide that a person can commit. In First Degree Murder—A Workable Definition, by Keith W. Blinn (1949-1950) explains the new Penal Code that was enforced in 1895 that divided first- and second-degree murder. First degree murder was punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for life (p. 731). Since the establishment of the Penal Code, America has since lived by it and uses it when handling terms of first-degree murder. Evidence is a major role when convicting a person for this crime. Without it, there is no way of proving that someone deliberately made a plan to kill someone before they acted it out. In our textbook, Criminology (fourth), Frank Schmalleger (2017) describes that first-degree murder involves malice aforethought which means that someone is waiting for their victim. The simple legal requirements needed to prosecute first-degree murder are the formation of the intent to kill and acting out the killing itself (p. 196). There is no significant number of requirements for someone to be convicted of first-degree murder. If it is planned in any way, willingly acted upon, and there is enough evidence the person will be convicted of it.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

In many resources, first-degree murder is categorized under murder. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the estimated number of murders in 2016 was 17,250. It increased from 2015 by 8.6 percent. There were also 5.3 murders per 100,000 people in 2016. It increased by 7.9 percent from 2015 estimates. In 2016, there were 1,216 female and 8,938 male offenders who were 18 and over that committed murders. Under 18 years of age there were 55 female and 681 male offenders who committed murder. There was a combined total from male, female, and unknown of 16,964 murders committed in 2016 (Expanded Homicide Data Table 2). There were no arrest or clearance data reported for murders in 2016.

Using the data provided above men are more likely to commit first-degree murder, but there are a significant number of women who commit it as well. According to the FBI’s UCR Table 6, Terre Haute, IN had 4 murders and 157 violent crimes committed during the year of 2016 (Table 6). According to Blinn (1949-1950), most murders are committed in the heat of passion, which some say it could be premeditated, but not deliberate (p. 733). There are different characteristics the offender will consider when planning to commit a crime. Michael J. Zydney Mannheimer describes many characteristics of a killer in his journal, Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. These include; physical or psychological harmed victims, mercy killers, character respondents to extra ordinary situations, and mental ill victims, among others (p. 895; 896). Mannheimer (2011) describes how if the killer premeditates and deliberates on the act that they are not only more culpable, but also more dangerous than a killer who does not (p. 901). A person who plans and constantly thinks about committing this crime is more dangerous because they spend all of their time thinking and planning, which builds their anticipation of the crime and which allows them to release their pent-up rage when acting out the crime.

Following the offenders and victims’ characteristics discussed, the rational choice theory matches justification of first-degree murder incidences prevalent in the contemporary societies today. This theory was developed by Cornish and Clarke to help think through situational crime issues and bases on the utilitarian belief that humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory borrows much from economic theories of choice behavior which reinforces the costs and benefits as important elements determining individual’s decision. Cornish and Clarke hypothesize that before indulging in crime, the offenders’ asses the likely consequences of their actions (Cornish & Clarke, 1968). The intention behind this theory is to provide a justification for situational crime prevention (Clarke 2014). As such, Cornish and Clarke argue that offenders’ rationality is bound within limitations in information processing ability, situational context, and emotions. In this regards, negative moods may lead to impulsive and risky decision making. This explains Blinn’s findings that most murders are committed in the heart of passion. Similarly, the physical and psychological wellness of an individual may push one into committing first degree murder. Moreover, illness is closely linked to reasons for indulging with murder. Further, responding to situations such as killing out of love to reduce suffering of a sick person (euthanasia), and protecting self from harm when attacked justify reasons for murder (Becker, 1968).

The rational choice theory can be applied in criminal justice system by reinforcing the motives behind the offender’s actions, methods used in murder, and the circumstances under which an offense was conducted (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). The theory is also used broadly to model the decision making process in court systems to understand behaviors of an individual in terms of actions that influence choices of indulging in crime.

The rational choice theory holds that crime is a product of criminal opportunity. As such, policies for crime management would include; decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population. The rational choice theory assumes that the criminal justice system has the ability to control crime through aggressive law enforcement techniques and use of severe punishment to deter offenders. However, the major weakness in this theory is the assumption that criminals think about the consequences before involving themselves with crime. Consequently, a criminal can be deterred from committing crime if chances of apprehension are high, justice is swift, and the punishment is severe. Therefore, an inverse relationship should exist between punishment and crime. The sanctions for offense if heightened will discourage the offender from engaging in criminal behavior. Practically, crime rates are influenced and controlled by the threat and imminence of criminal punishment. Commonly, if punished more severely, offenders’ being rationally beings would choose not to offend since the offence is not worthy the punishment. However this applies to calculated and planned crimes. Moreover, increasing police patrol would significantly decrease instances of crime. Further, reducing opportunities for offenders to commit crime would help reduce crime rate. This works well in situational crimes where specific targets are safeguarded against criminals. Guarding targets, controlling means of crime committing, and monitoring offenders would yield a positive result in combating crime (Siegel and McCormick, 2006: 135). Techniques such as closed circuit television and public surveillance however have been criticized since they only move crimes to other locations. To solve situational crimes hence starts with addressing the root cause of crime such as poverty, welfare and housing, harm reduction, and health among other strategies.

In a nutshell, while many crimes are bad first-degree murder is undoubtedly the worst. A person who deliberately plans to kill someone should receive the worst punishment the justice system has to offer, which is the death penalty or life in prison. There are many statistics and articles that prove premeditative, deliberate, and willingly killing is classified as first-degree murder and there are fine lines that will convict a person of this crime. Statistics show that there has been an increasing trend on incidences of first degree murder. This problem confirms to the rational choice theory that assumes humans are reasonable beings who measure the means and the ends of their actions. This theory can be applied in judging motives and nature of crimes by the offenders during criminal court hearings to reinforce the motives and situations that triggered the criminal action. Finally, strategies such as decreasing the suitability of targets, increasing the number of guardians, and reducing the offender population have been noted as effective means of combating crime. These strategies can be reinforced through passing aggressive laws and use of severe punishment to deter offenders.

Reference Page

1. Becker, Gary (1968). 'Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach'. The Journal of Political Economy (76): 169–217. doi:10.1086/259394
2. Blinn, K. W. (1950). First Degree Murder. A Workable Definition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1949-1951), 40(6), 729–735.
3. Clarke, R. V. (2014). Affect and the reasoning criminal: Past and future. In J. L. Van Gelder, H. Elffers, D. Reynald, & D. Nagin (Eds.), Affect and cognition in criminal decision-making (pp. 20–41). London, England: Routledge
4. Cornish, Derek; Clarke, Ronald V., eds. (1986). 'Introduction'. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-96272-7.
5. Cornish, D.; Clarke, R. (1987). 'Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory'. Criminology. 25 (4): 933–947.
6. Schmalleger, F. (2017). Criminology (fourth). Boston: Pearson Education.
7. Siegal, L and C. McCormick. (2006). Criminology in Canada: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (3rd ed.). Toronto: Thompson, Nelson.
8. Zydney Mannheimer, M. J. (2011). Not the Crime but the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation Formula. Indiana Law Journal, 86(3). Retrieved from www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol86/iss3/4
9. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Expanded Homicide Data Table 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-2.xls
10. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook: UCR. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Table 6. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s. 2016/tables/table-6/table-6.xls/view