The deterrence theory in criminal justice suggests that individuals make rational choices based on their assessments of the potential costs and benefits associated with criminal activity. According to this theory, if the costs of committing a crime, such as the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of punishment, outweigh the perceived benefits, individuals are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. This theory underlines the importance of a reliable legal system and a clear set of consequences for criminal actions, positing that effective deterrents can reduce crime rates by influencing the decision-making process of potential offenders.
In this context, the other options do not align with the fundamental premises of deterrence theory. The view that crime is random and cannot be predicted contradicts the rational actor model implicit in deterrence, which assumes that individuals weigh their options. Economic necessity being the sole reason for crime overlooks the cognitive processes behind decision-making that deterrence theory emphasizes. Lastly, attributing crime solely to social inequalities fails to consider the individual decision-making element that deterrence theory focuses on. The essence of this theory lies in the belief that a well-structured legal framework can guide individuals away from criminal actions through rational consideration of consequences.