Because Crime has been a major problem in a community, police departments wants the best by performing whatever they can to reduce crime and terror. Therefore, in order to deter crime, collecting data of crimes by analyzing who, what, where, when, and why are crucial to understand why crimes began in the first place. One of the effective reasons to why racial profiling holds a stand is because it appears to be an effective way to prevent terrorist attacks. This reason may seem a bit harsh on some people because of 9/11. Since the 9/11 attack, multiple agencies has been working hard to deter future tragic attacks by using crime data to find who are the potential threat in the future.
Several factors limiting the effectiveness of the deterrence theory are as follow: it assumes that people know what the penalties for a crime are, have good control over their actions, and think things through and make choices about their behavior base on logic. In many crime case, epically murder, the criminal considering murder do not just say I won’t do this if I am going to face the death penalty but I will do it if otherwise. In addition, the data which Muhlhausen and his team used to prove this theory, as he words it, is a sophisticated panel data methods. Therefore, the chances of error data are high, due to its
Robert Agnew established a crime causation principle around two major concepts. Both ideas results are directly related to crime and show the relationship between the constraints of crime and the motivation for the crime. The model reflected when the restrictions against crime are small, and the incentives for crime are high, crime will exist. Constraints in the form of sanctions and lack of internal control can progress criminality. The motivations, incentives, stimulants represent the rewards that are elevated through crime.
Because the cost of being incarcerated is extremely high, the due process orientation requires that the state eliminate all doubt as to whether constitutional procedural safeguards were violated. In order to control law enforcers, there must be a cost for violating the rules. Thus, in order to ensure that police officers will comply with the law, it is argued that the cost of releasing all suspects whose rights have been violated will be a high enough cost to motivate law enforcers to obey the law when they perform their duties. According to the due process orientation, corrupt police officers will cause the crime control orientation to
1. prevent others from committing similar offences. Jeremy Bentham’s theory states that deterrence should be the main purpose of punishment. Since individual deterrence deals with the concept of preventing the same individual from committing another offense, an example that can be used is a DWI. Individuals who are convicted of a DWI face consequences that include jail time, loss of license, and excessive fines which ultimately may make them rethink committing this crime or any crime with similar consequences. Because general deterrence uses one individual as an example for the rest of the population, an example that can be used is the three strike law.
The US abides by the motto of “Tough on Crime.” Citizen and political leaders believe that by employing incarceration as a persistent threat it will invite people to conform to social norms and discourage in engaging in illegal behavior. Although data shows that high incarceration in neighborhoods results in a future increase in crime. The perpetuation and reasons of mass incarceration come from prejudice ideologies and attitudes that are ingrained into the fabric of society. People of color are targeted, arrested, and punished for crimes. The criminal system operates on a hierarchy of individual liability over the demand and societal pressure”.
The social process theory of crime is an essential tool for criminologists and other justice related professionals. The social process theory contains three other sub theories, social learning, social reaction, and social control. The social process theory and sub theories interpret criminal behavior as a purpose of people’s interactions with establishments, organizations, and processes within the society (Siegel, 222). Domestic violence in this sense will focus around the social control sub theory, but any of the sub theories within the social process theory could apply. To use the social leaning theory a criminologist or specialist in the field must take account of the felon’s relationships and environment (Siegel, 228).
In poor and disadvantaged communities, there may well be a turning point at which meticulous crime policies and practices can do more harm than good; affecting children, families, and particularly neighborhoods of color. These policies promote the evolving issue of mass incarceration that can potentially lead people within these communities to poverty, homelessness, unemployment, back behind bars or dead; this is what criminologist refer to as the “coercive mobility thesis.” With the astonishing statistics and data reported on imprisonment, mass incarceration will continue to thrive in our country, unless we lessen mass incarceration through policies and legal reforms to create a more rational and equal system that protects public safety and
He believed laws were created in order to create a form of social contract. He believed that the purpose of punishment was to be used as a deterrent to keep criminals from committing more crimes. Punishment should be swift and severe, but only severe enough to outweigh the potential pleasures or personal benefits derived from committing crimes (Julianhermida.com, 2016). The Rational Choice theory derived from classical theorist. With this theory, it is believed that criminals consider the risks and rewards of committing a crime before they commit the act (Bohm & Vogel,
Homework Assignment 2 The rational choice theory states that crime is a function of a decision-making process in which the potential offender weighs the costs and benefits of an illegal act. I believe that most, if not all criminal activity, is committed after making a rational decision to do so. However, this decision requires careful planning by the prospective offender. Before choosing to commit the crime, potential criminals consider the risk of apprehension, the seriousness of the punishment, the potential value or benefit of the crime, the likelihood to succeed, and the need for criminal gain. Based on their thoughts from thinking over those criminal elements and weighing the costs and the benefits, the person makes a decision.
Based on my knowledge on conspiracy I believe that the RICO act is necessary but can also be not useful depending how the defendant pleads his case. Conspiracy is defined as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I think the RICO act is necessary because part of me believes that organizations would continue to get away with heinous crimes if the act was non-existing. Another reason to I believe RICO is necessary is because it has been important to up and coming laws. RICO has led to revitalizing the interest in civil punishment.
A theory that explains why people commit criminal behavior is the general deterrence theory. This theory suggests that “people will commit crime and delinquency if they perceive that the benefits outweigh the risks” (Sigel 103). For example, gangs who commit white-collar crimes know the risks of deciding to commit crimes checks frauds and identity theft. As previously mentioned, the article stated that these crimes have light consequence. Therefore, they outweigh the benefits over the risks, which include gaining millions of dollars through fraud and light jail
The Utilitarian view is considered a consequentialist theory, and is thus, concerned with the future consequences of punishment whereas Retributivism sees punishment as the deserved outcome resulting from a crime that has been committed. Rawls clarifies this distinction with the example of asking why person x has been sentenced to time in jail as opposed to why people are generally sentenced to time in jail. When asking the first question, it requires looking in the past and determining that the person is guilty for what they have done, and consequently punishing them. In contrast, the second question requires looking in the future and asserting that it will further interests of society in the long run to establish the institution of punishment. In light of this, we can conclude that when dealing with individual cases under the practice of punishment, a judge looks in the past, and examines the case, in order to determine accordingly a punishment for the offender, this is the Retributive model being put into effect.
When a judge is considering sentencing to convict an offender specific deterrence should be more valuable than general deterrence but both are needed in the sentencing process. For the offender not to reoffend specific deterrence need to be embedded to determine the certainty of the crime. So the offender will not commit the same crime twice. Overall doing the sentencing process the judge have the right to use this offender specific deterrence to promote general deterrence to the public. This will allow other to fear the consequences and possibly punishment if they commit this specific crime.
Supposedly capital punishment was created to deter criminals from committing horrible acts of rape and murder, however, today judges and the jury are eager to make anyone the scapegoat for the crimes committed; even the innocent. Nowadays, the judicial system becomes more discriminatory, toward gender, income, and race, in capital crime cases because of the desire to find, what is hoped to be, justice. When someone is convicted of any crime and is in the process of being arrested it is a law that his or her Miranda Rights must be stated before the arrest takes place. One of the major rights stated is “ If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.” Now, if the person being arrested has a higher income normally the attorney hired is very experienced and can make the most guilty person sound innocent. On the other hand, if the person being convicted has a lower income and has to receive their attorney from the court there is a high chance of losing the case.