PREVENTIVE THEORY Preventive philosophy of punishment is based on the preposition ‘not to avenge crime but to prevent crime’. It presupposes that need of punishment of crime arises simply out of social necessities. In punishing a criminal the community protects itself against anti- social act which endanger social order in general or person or property of its members. The real object of the penal law therefore, is to make the threat generally known rather than putting it occasionally into execution. It suggests that prisonisation is the best mode of crime prevention as it seeks to eliminate offenders from society thus disabling them for repeating crime.
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.
It offers a better alternative to everyone involved, including the victim, the prisoner, the families of both, and society as a whole. Any person who takes the life, security, or peace of mind of another human being deserves the same in return. Those who deny the death penalty’s effectiveness give criminals a green light to murder, rape, and burglarize innocent members of society. By sustaining the death penalty, we stand up to injustice and crime in our
Other people consider death penalty as a effective way to prevent revenge by those criminals and threaten other offenders in order to keep the order of society. From my point of view, there’s no absolute right or wrong to judge one thing and we can only get a justified conclusion from comparing the opposite two sides. Before debating the two sides, I would like to use the information from The State of Arizona Office of the Attorney General to introduce the
One of the theories it speaks of is the Pyrrhic defeat theory. This theory states that the criminal justice system is created to function in a particular fashion in order to create an image of crime where crime is actually seen as the “threat from the poor”. (Reiman, 2010, p.5) “Reimans’s theory suggests that those who have power to change the system benefit from the way it operates: they can go on committing harms and accumulating wealth without punishment, while the country remains focused on street crime and poor minority criminals.”(Leighton 2010) In order to accomplish this “The system must actually fight crime-or at least some crime-but only enough to keep it from getting out of hand and to keep the struggle to substantially reduce or eliminate crime.”(Reiman, 2010, p.5) This means that by creating an image that our system is trying to fight crime, but at the same time allowing certain crimes to exist and scare society, it benefits the wealthy in several ways. First, it promotes that the wealthy population is
The preventive theory is founded on the idea of preventing repetition of crime by disabling the offender through measures such as imprisonment, forfeiture and suspension of licence. Preventive theory was supported by utilitarian law reformers. It has a more humanising effect on the society as this theory doesn’t propagate avenging the crimes but aims to make the society safer by keeping offenders in jails. In their view, it is the certainty of law and its severity which has a real effect on offenders. The development of the institution of prison is essentially an outcome of the preventive theory of crime.
‘’The principle of manipulability refers to the predictable ways in which people act out of rational self-interest and might therefore be dissuaded from committing crimes if the punishment outweighs the benefits of the crime, rendering the crime an illogical choice.’’(http://www.biography.com/people/cesare-beccaria-39630) Beccaria believed that the criminal justice system needed to be changed, he thought the present criminal justice system was ‘barbaric and antiquated’. Beccaria also believed that certain laws should be changed and who they should benefit. He believed the system should establish the appropriate punishment for each crime committed. Unlike many of the other theories ‘’On Crime and Punishment’’ wanted to help and protect the rights of the criminals as well as the rights of the victims, he believes that punishment of the criminals should be that which serves the greatest public good. Beccaria also put forward in his theories the first modern argument against the death penalty.
The second type, general deterrence focuses more on potential offenders. General deterrence is an attempt to influence future offenders in a positive manner. This type of deterrence is all about prevention. Police deter crime by reinforcing the fact that they will catch you and you will be punished for whatever crime that you
If the justice system is trying to stop others from killing then they shouldn’t partake in the same killing process by executing someone. Murderers don’t always think about the range of punishments for murdering someone when they commit a crime. The law needs to inject fear in the minds of the criminals or murderers and discourage them from actually committing crime. We don’t just need something for the sake of it, we need something that actually deters crime and death penalty really isn’t one of them. Death penalty has been in practice for a very long time, even way back in history when people were not as developed as today and this itself shows that death penalty is not an effective deterrent for crime because the number of crimes and criminals in jails have increased immensely in today’s
The Death Penalty or the Capital Punishment should be considered illegal due to all of the things that are wrong with it. First of all the 8th amendment even says that there should be no cruel or unusual punishments for breaking the law, which the death penalty violates. Second the methods that they kill people sometimes don’t work and make the recipient die in pain and agony. Third of all 19 states already don’t allow it and some people are innocent that end up getting executed. So this shows why the death penalty should be abolished because the 8th amendment, the cruel methods used, and if we fixed this it would result in a safer and better society.
These outside factors shape our actions in all cases and must be adjusted to help people’s process in society. Correctional programs are used to make this adjustment do that once a criminal is released back into society, they will not choose the same means to reduce the outside strain caused by certain factors outside their control. I would argue that restorative justice is a facet of rehabilitation. Restorative Justice focuses on alleviating the harm that crime caused to society, the criminal, and the victim. The analogy given in class to explain restorative justice was also recapped in the book.
“As government, we don’t protect crimes but we have to ensure the lives of people are defended. Mob justice is never allowed and the police did the right thing. The residents should come with the evidence so that they help us prosecute them. As much as they were rescued from the site, we need more evidence,” he
Flaws of the Crime Control Model In the Crime Control Model it seems as though any citizen can be a committer of crime and that individuals should be okay with being monitored because if you are not doing anything wrong then you wouldn’t mind more of a stronger police presence so that they can arrest, investigate, search, convict, seize, and arrest more individuals (Crime Facts 2015). This logic is fundamentally flawed and not what our founding father’s had intended when building the foundation of this country. To give those in power as well as the police force more control will lead to making more monsters in this world. The crime control model takes away a certain level of accountability for police officers such as the legal pathways they
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.
They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone. I do think they are necessary because like I said for those who only commit small crimes it is easier for them to go through probation or house arrest instead of throwing a potentially nonviolent offender into a jail where they can become a violent offender. I think economically it is a good idea as well as socially to have the plea bargain. If benefits the community and judicial system because it prevents overcrowding and changing a person into something worse than they were as well as makes the process go a lot faster so that the criminal can be dealt with so other things that need to be addressed can be addressed. I would not change the plea bargain; I think that it is a good idea in most case scenarios for those who have committed small crimes because those with big crimes are still going to be dealt with in a harsher