Other weakness includes criminalization of social policy and unfair stigmatization where for criminalization of social policy which means “funding for social intervention projects becomes dependent on crime prevention outcomes rather than seen as a social good in its own right” (Knepper, 2007 cited by Evans, 2010), where initial aim of social policy focusing on human welfare has been replaced by desire to control crime in areas like housing and education while unfair stigmatization or labelling occurs as a result of focusing on the at risk groups or communities which lead to the problem of stigmatizing participants as delinquent or even condemnation of the entire neighborhood as “being prone to crime and outside normal group behavior” (Evans, 2010,
Communities are also by crime and should be considered as secondary victims. Restorative justice thus has three hallmarks; encounters between victims and offenders, the obligation to repair harm and the expectation that transformation may take place. 1 1 Restorative versus retributive justice A distinction must be made between Retributive justice and Restorative justice. Retributive justice is where the offender is prosecuted and brought to court in order to be found guilty and pay for what they did. Central focus is the offender getting what they deserve.
Also intent is enough to convict an accused member while motive isn’t. Motive simply substantiates claims. However, it should be noted that there are times when the intent may exist but the actual cause of the crime is different thus showing that intent is not the whole story. This is the ‘but for’ scenario. All in all, motive provides an insight into actions while intent is the action before and alongside criminal activity.
Both the theoretical perspectives highlight similar factors leading to such criminal offense. According to the rational cause choice theory, individuals are involved in cyber crime due to certain motivational factors such as money or power. The psychological trait theory also explains the reason behind such criminal activity in similar manner. As proclaimed in this theory, mental development in terms of understanding moral standards is linked with committing crime. Another similarity is both the theories agree with the fact that rational decisions based on personal benefits and lack of concern leads to criminal act (Eysenck, 2013).
Nonetheless it is imperative while examining crime to consider various issues which bring up a few significant issues with respect to the way crime is seen in the society. Investigating inquiries, for example, who makes the tenets of society (laws) and why, is imperative as any response to this inquiry is supported by examination on social power, political power, class distinction and the way crime is socially constructed. Social standards and values fluctuate fundamentally crosswise over diverse societies, religions and social orders. Despite the fact that it can be said that when these social norms are upset, the "breaking" of social "principles" can be unlawful, in which case it turns into a demonstration of crime, it is likewise essential to separate in the middle of crime and deviance which both incorporate the violation of social standards (Akçomak and ter Weel,
Criminal profiling, also known as offender or psychological profiling has been defined differently by different scholars. It is defined as "an educational attempt to provide investigative agencies with specific information as to the type of individual who committed the crime". (Vernon J. G.,1996) It refers to criminal investigation techniques adopted to set up the profile of the offender who is more likely to commit certain crime by gathering evidence and information from the crime scene, victims and witnesses. (Norbert E., 2007) Whereas David Canter sees it as "criminal shadow" and says that psychological traces or patterns are often left behind by criminals. Adding more, he stated that personalities of criminals can be monitored through his
Situational Crime Prevention believes people commit crimes strictly for monetary reasons. There’s been debates on whether how effective Situational Crime Theory actually is between criminologists, according to “Understanding Crimes in Canada” (Boyd, 2015) they mentioned Situational Crime Prevention being an effective way of preventing crimes. Keith Hayward, a professor of Criminology criticizes Situational Crime Prevention and Rational Choice Theory in his article “Situational Crime Prevention and It’s Discontents: Rational Choice and Harm Reduction versus ‘Cultural Criminology’” (Farrell,2010). Crimes are being committed based on our decision making, people who commits/committed crimes usually makes impulsive, imperfect, and impaired decisions. Impulsive decision making would be committing a crime without thinking, they’re usually made too quickly.
To refer back to the point of these with power deciphering which acts are criminal, it can also be argued that those with power (e.g. government) define these acts as criminal, whether socially deviant or not, to suit their own purpose and to control certain parts of society. This argument may help to explain why different societies create different laws in different places, the answer being that other governments may have different agendas which suit the social order of their society. This argument about social power supports the view that crime is socially constructed. While discussing crime as a social construction it is also important to differentiate between crime and deviance.
Explains how citizens and surviving victims are the main things that help police capture serial killers in the modern day. The finding of this article shows that there are two sides to perception regarding criminal profiling and forensic science – the public’s and the law enforcement’s. Also typical criminal TV shows such as Criminal Minds, Law & Order, and Profiler often are inaccurate in describing criminal profiling. I will use this article for my essay to help explain the accurate description of criminal profiling and how police capture serial
The criminal justice system is that subsystem of the national legal system which determines the circumstances in which and the procedure according to which individuals may be punished by the state for conduct that is defined as a crime. For the sake of convenience, a distinction is normally drawn between the substantive aspects of the criminal justice system and its procedural aspects. The study of criminal law generally focuses on substantive law; namely, the principles of law according to which criminal liability (guilt) is determined, whilst the law of criminal procedure, together with the law of evidence, focuses on the manner in which this is done, together with the way in which offenders and suspected offenders are to be treated by the