Here, the primary focus is on the offender. The two components that social control agencies do is punish and treat the convicted felons. Ultimately, these agencies were created to help, but the effect of creating this involvement is rather harmful. Patrons of this perspective believe that justice agencies should lessen their engagement with the criminal. Noninterventionists also disapprove of the labels that agencies and society gives the offender.
This placed a strong reliance on psychological remedies for crime, including psychological analysis, diagnosis, and treatment of the root causes of criminal behavior similar to the treatment of a patient with a mental illness. In theory this would prevent recidivism because the true cause of the behavior would be resolved. The crime control period views crime as more of a rational choice and values punishment that is swift, certain, and severe in order to prevent/suppress criminality which threatens the functioning of a free society. This “us vs them” mentality supports greater prosecutorial power, increased usage of punitive processes like imprisonment/fines, and greater police power to deter
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
Policing policies including broken windows and zero-tolerance policy have different limitations on what can be stopped. The broken windows theory gave police a wide discretion when stopping citizens. During the time when broken windows was implemented, citizens were able to get away with low-level crimes. Once zero-tolerance began, the officers became more strict in stopping citizens which would make them feel targeted for the wrong reasons, like the color of their skin. The zero-tolerance policy was implemented to update the police’s discretion of what to stop and to keep crime down.
Racial profiling suspicious people of specific ethnicities will create a safer place because if the police were to arrest these people then the crime rates will drop, creating a safer place. "Modifying airport profiling procedures to include scrutiny of race, gender, and age has the potential to impact fundamental consultation rights" (MacDonald). If the police were to use racial profiling as a major part to justify if a person was guilty of a crime, that would create a safer environment. Racial profiling should be allowed for the police to use because it is easier for them to track down criminals. If a criminals was on the run and they were of a specific ethnicity then it would help the police to use racial profiling on all people of that ethnicity.
I especially agree with this trend, because I think that we should find help for the offenders that have mental illnesses and substance abuse rather just sit them behind bars and punish them. Yes, they need to be punished for the crimes they committed, but they also need to be treated for their illnesses. I also agree with the trend on adjusting sentences, simply because I believe that we should give offenders and prisoners a sentence that goes with the crime that they have committed. The more severe their crime is the more time I believe that they should get. If an offender committed a petty crime I do not believe that they should get a severe punishment.
After hearing this statistic, the reader can be made aware that the criminal justice system is broken. Zuckerman reveals the imperfections in the criminal justice system and allows for the audience to be more open to a different solution to the problem. Zuckerman uses this statistic to highlight the weaknesses in opposing arguments. Another argument Zukerman refutes is that putting everyone in prison is the best way to ensure safety. He contests this statement by saying that the prison environment makes them more harmful to society than when they went in, due to the many psychological
According to Valerie Wright, author of "Deterrence in Criminal Justice", society seems to agree with the old adage that there should be minimum mandatory sentences for crimes. This "stance" on crime is society 's deterrence for would-be criminals to know that if they do the crime, they will do some time (1). The question though that begs to be asked is: should prison sentences for nonviolent offenders be rehabilitative in nature? Should the "three strikes you are out rule" be applicable for those that commit nonviolent crimes? Should these sentences be altered to provide rehabilitation services, such as community service, probation or some sort of supervised out-patient treatment?
Within incapacitation, the general population may be deterred when this theory is implemented being that it imprisons offenders by physically removing them from the society when a criminal offense is committed. This punishment could possibly deter individuals because if someone knows they will be imprisoned for a crime that they’ve committed then that could possibly be deterred away from that crime. For those who are not affected and continue to reoffend, to deter them just desert or retribution should be applied. The implementation of what we know today as “an eye for an eye” could help decrease the recidivism rate. Deterrence can be gained through just desert/retribution; individuals may be deterred after if our correctional system takes on a just desert mindset of for “stubborn offenders”.
Yes, I would agree that some people are just evil, but that is NOT the majority. That is a very, very small minority group and for that, they should serve the appropriate amount of time (Just Deserts). Rehabilitation focuses on the idea that, for the most part, criminals commit crimes due to factors outside their control. I argue that the majority of life choices made by criminals’ and noncriminals’ alike are because of these outside factors. These outside factors shape our actions in all cases and must be adjusted to help people’s process in society.
The next goal of deterrence is that imprisonment is not so much a deterrent for the offender rather for others in society who are thinking of committing crimes and the fear of prison should deter them from going through with their actions (Sykes, 2007). The last goal of deterrence, imprisonment will keep offenders away from society thus they are not able to prey on the community (Sykes, 2007). The last justification for imprisonment is reform. The use of reform as a justification for imprisonment is based on the idea that prisons can eradicate the causal factors of crimes within an individual and imprisonment can be used as a mean to keep the offender long enough in order for that goal to be accomplished. Based on the entirety of the book, the ground punishment seems to be more closely aligned with the New Jersey State Prison in the 1950s.
Criminals that are apprehended are punished with jail time. Some go to state run jails, federal prison, boot camps, or maximum security prisons. I theory that criminal sanctions should scare criminals straight, and convinced them that they never want to commit a crime again because of jail time. You would think that the loss of freedom, privilege to vote, and ability to enjoy life would scare someone straight. Well it does not, Research has found that prisoner’s in max security prisons has a higher return rate, than prisoner’s in state ran jails.
Should Prison Records Be Expunged After Sentence is Served? When considering expunging a prisoner’s record there should be an abundance of factors that follows the final decision of whether or not to expunge a criminal record. Factors included should be what crime the prisoner committed, whether the person shows true remorse for the crime they committed, and if the benefits outweigh the risk of expunging their record. Criminals with lower level offenses have better chances of getting their records. Criminals who have higher level crimes are less likely to be able to get their records expunged.