Question: Critically review two criminological theories that hold relevance today for our understanding of crime and our responses to it and justify your choice

The deterrence theory has its roots in classical criminology, which advocated for the use of harsh punishments to discourage people from committing crimes. The theory suggests that people weigh the costs and benefits of criminal behavior before deciding whether or not to engage in it. If the perceived cost of punishment is high, then people will be less likely to commit crimes. There are two main types of deterrence: specific deterrence, which aims to deter an individual from committing a crime again, and general deterrence, which aims to deter others from committing crimes by making an example of the offender.

The rehabilitation theory also has its roots in classical criminology, but it takes a different approach to dealing with crime. Rather than advocating for harsher punishments, the rehabilitation theory suggests that offenders can be reformed and rehabilitated so that they do not reoffend. This theory is based on the idea that people who commit crimes do so because they have some sort of underlying psychological or social issue that needs to be addressed. If these issues can be addressed, then the offender can be rehabilitated and will not reoffend.

Both the deterrence theory and the rehabilitation theory have their strengths and weaknesses. The deterrence theory is good at deterring crime, but it does not address the underlying causes of crime. The rehabilitation theory addresses the underlying causes of crime, but it is not as effective at deterring crime. I believe that both of these theories are worth considering when trying to understand crime and develop responses to it.