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 fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.
Situational crime prevention (SCP) and rational choice theory (RCT), together, provide an insightful explanation as to why people commit crimes and what can be done to deter them. Much of the work done in RCT and SCP was founded by Derek Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke, who wanted to understand the decision-making process of potential offenders and focus on the spatial and situational factors that make such crime possible (Farrell and Hodgkinson, 2015). This paper aims to explore SCP and its relationship to RCT, as well as analyze the works of Keith Hayward and Graham Farrell in their discussion of these ideas. This paper has four objectives: first, the paper will discuss SCP and RCT and explain the link between the two concepts. Second, this paper will examine Hayward 's discussion of RCT, SCP, and cultural criminology.
Therefore this explains the importance of challenging unjust laws to keep government on a small scale by civilians acting as the counter force to balance authority and prevent corruption. Dr. King also supports this when he describes two types of laws that determine when civil disobedience is needed and a responsibility. He advocates, “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” and “a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King 2). Similar to Antigone she tells Creon about her defying acts, her moral duty and how the “final justice that rules the world below makes no such law” against morals that need to be refuted (Antigone 10). Dr. King and Sophocles both advocate the moral responsibility of
How many committed? Would this crime qualify as domestic terrorism? To study the independent variable, another, more specific survey could be conducted in which the crimes labeled as domestic terrorism would be looked over more specifically to see if the crimes were planned and/or committed by people in a domestic terrorist group or not. Furthermore, we could see if the possibility of the person being in a domestic terrorist group was even considered by the law enforcement organization that apprehended them.
This theory is associated with social reaction where a criminal act occurs and the offender is caught, so the police pick a label. When the new label is created, the delinquent accepts this negative label, and then the delinquent behavior worsens. To break it down, labeling theory is a theory of self-identity, stereotypes. Labeling theory states that deviance is not an inherent to an act, but focuses on the tendencies of a group of people, typically minorities to negatively label them as deviants.
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.
In the article, “ The CSI Effect: TV Crime Dramas’ Impact on Real Life Cases” By Madeline Anderson says that “ Criminals may be influenced by the content on such shows to try and take steps to conceal crimes and make forensic evidence harder to uncover and use.” This shows that these television shows may influence criminals to take part in hiding anything that would lead them back to the crime. Anderson also states that “ ..the CSI Effect should be a cause for concern, making it advisable to censor or alter the material presented in crime dramas to avoid giving criminals ideas.” This shows that these crime dramas should have less of the evidence that would given in a case in order to protect future criminal cases to be tampered
Integrated theory does not necessarily attempt to explain all criminality but is distinguishable by the idea of merging concepts drawn from different sources. Integrated criminology tries to bring together the diverse bodies of knowledge that represents the full range of disciplines that study crime (Schmalleger, 2012). Integrated theories provide wider explanatory power (Schmalleger, 2012). Integrative theories are like diversified theories and focus on criminal behavior and criminal activity while other theories focus on punishment and crime control (Jeffery, 1959). Integrated approach combines concepts and propositions from two or more prior existing theories into a single new set of integrated concepts and propositions (Elliot, 2017).
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 theories of Restorative Justice and Utilitarianism seem to have much in common. Both aim to reach a virtuous response to crime, and therefore they are positive and forward looking. Utilitarians argue that punishing offenders crimes are likely to be reduced. Jeremy Bentham identified two objectives for punishment that share the same idea. Specific deterrence and general deterrence purpose are to increase the "price" for a criminal act in order to discourage potential offenders from choosing to commit crimes.
Crime according to critical criminologists is political as it is responded to by those in power. Critical Criminologists want to gain an understanding of society and the state and how these two impact upon each other (Scraton & Chadwick 1998). Critical Criminologists want to turn away from other theories of crime and concentrate on inequalities within structures and power relations of different societies. There has been significant work on the relationship between deviants and the relationship they have with the state and the control and power the state has over them (Newburn, 2007). Punishment to critical criminologists is viewed as being associated with a system of social inequality and it can worsen and even produce the inequality itself
General deterrence is based on the philosophy that the general public will be deterred by the penalty, as it outweighs the benefits of crime (Sarre, 2007). Specific deterrence, focuses on the offence committed by the individual offender. It aims to deter the offender from future prohibited behavior (Clear et al., 2006). Sarre argues that it is unlikely that people choose their actions before committing a criminal offence (2007). Preventative measures are seen as more effective than punishment (Stinchcomb, 2011).
This is a great use of pathos used by Jacoby as it forces the reader to think about what they feel is more morally wrong, and he is hoping that they decide that jailing is worse than the public shaming of flogging. Jacoby makes a convincing argument in “Bring Back Flogging” using ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade the reader into agreeing that flogging a convict would be better than jailing them. Using cited, reliable information helps build his logical argument and his credibility as a writer simultaneously. Jacoby’s use of emotional appeal in this argument convinces the reader to agree with his view on the matter.
The question is, who actually determines what punishment is deserved and what isn’t? I assure that there is some way how to determine how much punishment is deserved and that goes into further detail, but instead of figuring out what punishment individuals should serve for their crimes committed, they could be rehabilitating criminals who need their help, which would be a reductivist point of view. Although retributivists believe people should be punished for the crimes they have committed, the concept named ‘just deserts’ was introduced to represent the idea of a “fair and appropriate punishment related to the severity of the crime that was committed” which comes under the harsher side of punishment. It also argues that the most severe offence committed, the equal amount of punishment will be taken upon that criminal. This type of punishment is seen as “morally justified” and if the harm it prevents to the criminal is greater than the harm inflicted upon the victim it is seen as “rational, fair and just”.