This theory supports the situational crime prevention theory that crime is a choice and can be deterred through the removal of suitable targets or guardianship. Guardianship can be a security guard, a fence, a password or any other person or item that makes a target unsuitable due to increased chances of being caught or the offense too difficult. Routine activity theory is one of the more popular and accepted theories of
This research paper will discuss why there is no value to the just deserts approach and why, if supplemented with a re-entry program, just deserts will have a greater significance. The theory and practice of the just deserts approach will be examined as well as why it does not appear to be working for offenders. Additionally, re-entry programs will be analyzed; those operating in Canada and in the United States, to further explain why reintegrating is better for the community and offenders. It is easy to agree with the just deserts approach to crime, however, when a loved one is affected by the harsh punishments and the negative consequences of prison, it makes life afterward extremely
The criminal activities theory talks about crime events (Criminal Justice, n.d.) It looks at why some people commit crimes and what are the motivations to commit the crimes. This theory suggests that the daily routine of society could cause or create the opportunity for a crime. All you need is a likely offender, a target, and the absence of a guardian to create an opportunity for a crime. Suggestions made to reduce crime from this theory try to alter the routines and limit opportunities to prevent crimes. Another theory related to criminal activity would be the social control theory.
Mandatory sentencing laws often target moral vices like alcohol, sex, drugs, and to friendships and family via prohibition, and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so serious there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced.
They want to make sure when punishing an immoral act, there is benefit to society. Shaw says this because utilitarianism does give established laws and reasoning behind them. Shaw also says that Utilitarians say that our system of punishment as it functions, succeeds in rehabilitating many convicts and discourages them from future mistakes. his reasons for saying this. I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society.
Focus on the offenders who pose a greater threat of continuing crime. Time should be spent on higher risk offenders versus spending time trying to focus treatment on lower risk offenders.There are two types of offenders, acute and stable. An acute risk factor means they can change quickly and stable means they take longer to change. Intensive treatment for lower risk offenders can cause pro-social disruption, more violations, and can lead to anti-social activity. Latessa explains how we shouldn't treat offenders for thing that do not link to them.
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
And how will this justify the issues of male sex offenders from repeating their sex crimes. While there are many pros to chemical castration, the side effects outnumber the real issue. Chemical castration goes against a person’s human rights, it also is an option the government hands out so that the offender can avoid jail, yet they are still suffering due to their health’s side effects. Chemical castration is offered to sex offenders, sex abusers, and child molesters who are serving time in prison for committing specific crimes in exchange for shorter prison time and to those who are in the process for release as time served. The process of administering a Depo-Provera injection or pill to sex offenders is to lower their testosterone levels and decrease the sexual desires to preventing them from repeating the criminal acts.
In addition, this strong evidence should lead to greater formal charges in adult courts rather than juvenile courts. Adult courts offer better protection to the society and moreover, juvenile serious offenders are held accountable and responsible for their actions. Additionally, they argue that, if serious juvenile offenders with criminal history are sentenced there is the likelihood they will be a social
A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.