Donald was arrested for murdering an acquaintance. at the trial, donald takes the stand and testifies that he and the victim knew each other. he admits that they would drink and use drugs together. one night while "partying," donald explains in his testimony, an argument got out of hand during a card game. donald explains that the victim accused him of cheating and pulled out a knife on him and started swinging it in the air. donald said that he had no choice but to pull out his gun and shoot the victim. the jury convicted donald of manslaughter.
who would argue that donald weighed the potential costs and benefits of shooting the victim and decided to pull the trigger as a result of free will?
a) a conflict theorist
b) a positivist
c) a critical criminologist
d) a rational choice theorist

The best answer to the question: Who would aregue that Donald weighed the potential costs and benefits of shooting the victim and decided to pull the trigger as a result of free will, would be, D: A rational choice theorist.

Explanation:

Rational choice theory is a perspective that helps to understand human behavior and the choices that a person, or a group, makes, in light of the options, and preferences, that that person has, given a certain situation. As such, anyone who applies this perspective will take a given circumstance and look at all the possible options available to correctly form a reaction to it, including weighing all the consequences, the benefits and the potential costs of making such a choice. In light of this perspective, Donald was faced by a difficult circumstance in which his life was on the line. Measuring all the possibilities, and overseeing the possible outcomes, Donald makes the choice, even if under duress, to pull out the gun and shoot his partner, instead of simply running away. In light of the rational choice theory, Donald made the choice of his preference after weighing all the possibilities.

among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. the friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. he will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. the instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. the valuable improvements made by the american constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. however anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. it will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. these must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

explanation: the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. so strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. but the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. a landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. the regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the governmen

answer; i believe the answer is (b) fascism;