The three strikes law seems to assist with steering offenders away from committing further crimes because following the second conviction there may be a reminder of what will happen if the felon commits another criminal act his or her freedom will be taken away and will receive a prison sentence of a mandatory twenty-five years, or worst, a life sentence. The thought of serving a life sentence may be the reason that some change their lifestyle and stop committing crimes. Theirs also disadvantage to the law first it gives the potential risks of more crimes to being committed. Already convicted felons are given the chance to commit more crimes, even though this is not what the law was intended for but the opportunity is there and present. Civilians are being placed in greater risk of being targeted by the same offenders that rather continue to commit crimes.
In addition, the purpose of punishing offenders is to ensure they will not commit any crimes in future. However, putting all kind of criminals in a prison may not accomplish the goal, but boost the possibility that prisoners will come under the negative peer pressure. Furthermore, many offenders find it difficult to rehabilitate into the society because of their prison records. Thus, social training is believed to benefit them better as they will absorb conventions and codes of conduct after the activities.
Some factors may seem hard to believe but it can cause a great impact in society like abortion. Levitt and Dubner introduces a successful argument that could actually make the reader believe that abortion did have an effect on crime rates decreasing in the 1990’s. Levitt and Dubner spend a lot of time convincing the reader how in reality policemen, stricter gun laws, and drug market changes are not the main reason for the decrease in crime rates. Instead, they begin to explain that the primary reason for the decrease in crime rates in the 1990 's is the legalization of abortion. The legalization of abortion occurred right after the case
I don 't think it should be abolished simply because innocent people have been executed. There are many more innocent people that would be killed due to there being no capital punishment. As well as this capital punishment works as a deterrent and makes people think twice about comitting as they are aware of the consequences. A crucial reason why I think capital punishment shouldn 't be abolished is the fact that it leaves the majority of society happy. Some critics of my viewpoint might point out that capital punishment goes against our human rights.
The Broken Windows Theory is effective at preventing crime by cracking down on urban disorder. Broken Windows policing has reduced the number of shootings, murders and other violent crimes in New York City. Through the implementation of Broken Windows policing in New York City, businesses were able to grow because they no longer had to fear having their money or goods stolen by delinquents. Broken Windows policing in New York City encouraged the growth of tourism; by cleaning up the streets and removing criminals, outsiders felt safe visiting. This reinvigoration on New York City also helped cause the influx of new residents because people were able to take the subway and walk down the streets without fear of being mugged or assaulted.
Stop and frisk is when an officer suspects that someone is carrying a weapon or something illegal and will pat them down it helps the police officers to prevent a crime before it happens. “It offers the potential of reducing crime over the long-term. When crime can be proactively stopped, then, the crime rates in our neighborhoods can be reduced over a more extensive period”( 12 Racial Profiling Pros and Cons). With the police officers stopping more people, they believe individuals are not going to want to carry drugs on them since they know officers can stop them. Thus reducing crimes in the neighborhood.
While the death penalty does conflict with utilitarianism, I believe that getting rid of such people as above, will maximize the communities’ happiness as they would no longer be a burden to our society; through space limitations, harm toward guards, and monetary expenses (debatable). But, there is also the realization that not all of the prisons are filled with people as mentioned above. Many include individuals with pasts of drug offenses. In prison sentences, the minimum limit is 5 years for adults involved with drug felonies and 1year for those under the age of 21. Some suggest their incarceration time as ineffective while others demand more.
There are two clear sides to this battle and that is people who are for gun control and people who are against gun control. People that are for gun control might argue that it will make the U.S a safer place and the crime rate will decrease. In a study that took place, it showed that the crimes committed with firearms has been steady decreasing since 1998 (Stell 2004). Basically the statistic is saying that crimes with firearms are becoming less likely to happen. Some people may argue that without guns society will be a safer place.
The first thing the author says is that people will discuss a mass incarceration. There is a possibility of this happening because people, white people most likely, will feel safer knowing that these “threats” are put away. The second alternative is that because income inequality is growing, it will cause a bigger distance with society. “If the socially and economically disadvantaged portion of the population grows appreciably, and it likely will, those who live in underclass neighborhoods will experience more marginalization and stress, which will affect crime patterns”(Crutchfield). The last alternative is that nothing will truly change and other others will still make papers that will encourage the subculture of violence and poverty.
As a result of public shaming being a more effective punishment, criminals are less likely to repeat the offense. Public shaming could result in a criminal to have a traumatic experience. Unlike other forms of punishment, public shaming allows for a criminal to truly feel what they did was wrong and it “can be a strong motivator for good behavior” (Diana Kwon). A criminal could be sentenced to 4-8 years of jail time and remain unchanged, but with public shaming the criminal receives publicity that is “so unpleasant that it qualifies as punishment” (Greg Beato). Because of this, Some people would argue that with public shaming a punishment is extended beyond the sentence.
A decrease in incidence of gun-related violence has also decreased in the US during the time when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect. There are two arguments dominating the gun control issue. The anti-gun control people believes that the problem is with the people not with the guns and imposing heavier sanctions, harsher punishments on criminals, and more armed guards should solve the problem of gun violence. On the other hand, the pro-gun control people argues that the easy accessibility of firearms directly correlates gun-related violence and mass shooting (Lemieux, 2014). Both arguments have its merits, but in dealing with the gun control issue, it is important to put ethics and public health implications into consideration (Boylan,
Realignment is a method used to redirect low-level offenders and parole violators from overcrowded prisons to country jails. This saves money by decreasing the overpopulated prisons, decreasing the cycle of offenders to prison that thwarts rehabilitation, and impeding local law enforcement supervision. The 2011 Public Safety Realignment sentenced non-violent and non-sex offenders to country jails instead of prisons, so the less severe the crime the more likely they were to go to a country jail. Realignment is funded through the state sales tax revenue and Vehicle License Fees. Governor Brown 's Proposition 30, passed in November 2012, created a constitutional amendment prohibiting the Legislature from reducing Realignment funding.
I think that having gun restrictions can reduced the amount of crimes in any city and make the crime rate in America decrease. With the limits of guns we would have less people feeling like their safety is at risk and would see less mass shooting.I believes checking people to see if they are allowed to have the gun back on qualification can help also. With illegal possession of having a gun makes things easier to happen.I hope that other states will consider to have gun restriction to in sure safety for each American.
Prior to the introduction to crack, cocaine and herion were more expensive drugs. The drug users were people who could afford the more expensive drugs. When the drugs became less expensive, example crack, people were not making as much money being a crack dealer as they did compared to the late 80’s. Those kingpins were going to prison or dying and the younger generation didn’t feel like the minimal amouts they could make or killing someone over it was worth the jail time. So even though the crime rate fell due to this, it was nothing in comparison to the percentage that drugs caused the crime to increase in prior