These theories support the main assumptions that crime is a choice and will not occur if the opportunity is absent and rewards are diminished. Routine activity theory. The routine activity theory takes for granted that there are many motivated offenders. Crime rate variance thus depends on the supply of suitable targets and available guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). 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.
For example, a person speeding over the posted speed limit would not need to be sent to prison like a person who murders someone. The Utilitarian perspective is that of whatever results in the greater good for the greatest number of people is what is right. Punishment can only be justified, according to the Utilitarian perspective,
Thesis: Gross Negligence is not a State of Mind. No persons should be found guilty of a crime merely because he acted below the standard of the reasonable man. (FOR) In Criminal law by Card, Cross and Jones, the term mens rea is defined as “the state of mind expressly or impliedly required by the definition of the offence charged.” These ‘states of mind’ have routinely been understood to include “intention” and “recklessness”. Over time, there have been debates as to whether ‘negligence’ – a type of fault that carries a heavy criminal burden – is a state of mind. Here, we argue that negligence, particularly gross negligence, is not a state of mind, and contend that no persons should be found guilty of a crime because he acted below the standard of the reasonable man.
A theory that could describe these behaviors could be the rational choice theory. This could describe it, because the rational choice theory discussed that people are inherently evil. This is important to note, because that means that people just commit crimes because they can. Criminal activity provides people with a rush and it is fun. It is also an easy way to get the instant
Some may argue that public shaming towards an offender is not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. As long as sentences influence deterrence, “sentences involving public shaming are constitutional” (Beato). Judges have the right to use public shaming to deter others from committing the same crime. By using public shaming, judges can also avoid the costly effects of imprisonment. Through public shaming, offenders can avoid the harsh conditions of imprisonment.
To wrap things up Psychological Theory says that criminal conduct is an aftereffect of individual contrasts in speculation forms. There are a wide range of mental speculations, however they all trust that it is the individual 's contemplations and sentiments that direct their activities. All things considered, issues in intuition can prompt to criminal conduct. On account of the first degree murder the wrongdoing was not one of energy, yet rather arranged. Hernandez rented a vehicles and had two friends help him do his grimy work.
The school was concerned with the development of a rational, systematic and efficient way to fight crime rather than understand the nature of it (Hughes, 1998). Additionally, classicism tried to understand crime as “a product of a rational free will”, Hughes (1998) continues, and a criminal act was seen as something chosen and as a result of the calculation of pain and pleasure involved with the crime (Hughes, 1998). Besides, punishment, as Hughes (1998) depicts, was seen as “an instrument of social control to achieve certain desired ends” and it must be warranted, effective and profitable. Furthermore, classicists believed that it was better to prevent than to punish (Hughes, 1998). During the Enlightenment period, new theories about crime, punishment and new ways of rationalising justice arose (Newburn, 2013).
As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.
One of these people were Robert Agnew who thought that strain theory could be very important in explaining crime and deviance that happens but that it needed to be in a different context so that it was not tied to social class or cultural variables, but have it focus more on norms according to society. “In sum, we would expect certain strains to affect crime in all or most societies, while the effect of other strains may differ across societies. A general strain theory that explains differences in criminal offending will systematically list all of those strains that function as “extreme stressors,” as well as those societal factors that affect the magnitude of given strains, the interpretation of such strains (e.g., their perceived magnitude and injustice), and the likelihood of criminal coping”(Sigfusdottir & Kristjansson , 2012).The general strain theory have 3 categories of strains according to Agnew which are the inability to achieve positively valued goals ,the removal or the threat to remove positively valued stimuli and to present a threat to one with noxious or negatively valued stimuli.The inability to achieve positively valued goals are difference between the expectation influenced by factors such as social class