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.
Gilling (1997) mentioned different manners of interferences could be indicated from different theories through various methods and assistants, which applied in many cases such as stages in the provenance of crime. He concluded that the effect of criminologist suggestion in crime interference is different because of the focal point on research is divergent. One of the John Young’s researches: Thinking Seriously About Crime: Some models of Criminology has analyzed different prospects of criminology, which are Classicism, Positivism, Conservatism etc based on the idea of Policy Deduction. It is not just about revealing different forms of criminology, but investigating whether their intention is punishment or treatment. (Young, 1981).
The target can be a person or an object, whose place or occasion puts it at more or less risk of culprit attackers. These attackers influenced a target risk elements called VIVA, which is the value, inertia, visibility and access. In contrast to theories of criminality, which are centred on the figure of the criminal and the psychological, biological, or social factors that motivated the criminal act, the focus of routine activity is the study of crime as an outcome, feature its relation to space and time and feature its ecological nature and the implications thereof (Mirὀ F., 2014). (Cohen and Felson (1979) “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
Why We Punish & Different Ways Criminals are Punished Why does the criminal justice system of America punish criminals? The answer lies in the words “justice.” The term justice can be interpreted in many ways. Criminals are punished to: make people abide the laws of their country and state, put an end to illegal activity that could be harmful to themselves or the community, protect the public from evil, prevent crime from rising in certain areas. These are just some of the reasons why criminals are punished. There are also different approaches to punishing criminals such as: sentences that fit the crime, community service, the death penalty, and rehabilitation.
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.
This approach to understanding and researching criminality brought in the idea of researching crime empirically. “Positivism aims to obtain objective facts, unlike interpretivism, which is subjective and is more concerned with uncovering the meaning behind actions, and has three basic premises; measurement (quantification), objectivity (neutrality), and causality (determinism).” (Hagan 2010: 117).The Positivist Paradigm presumes that criminals are essentially different from non-criminals by certain factors that are psychological (mental illness, weak conscience), biological (physical characteristics, intelligence, medical factors (adrenaline, testosterone) or sociological and sometimes it’s a combination of all these factors. This means that offenders are without free will therefore are absent of choice in whether to be involved in a criminal act or not and can deny any responsibility of the violent
Positive criminology focuses on the criminal rather than the criminal law because the motivational and behavioural actions, especially springing from life situations, may explain criminal deviancy. The Positivist would argue, therefore, that the law and its implication would be secondary, if not irrelevant (Matza, 1964). Positivist theorists dispel the Classical theory of free will and use scientific determinism to study the criminal behaviour. Instead, positive criminology focuses on set of determinates and constraints that affect an individual and link them to criminal deviancy and behaviour. With free will, there is a improbable chance of totality, especially given that humans cannot control the sociological, neurological and environmental factors in their lives.
According to Opensecrets, super pacs are independent expenditure-only committees that raise money from donors outside of a campaign in order to advocate for or against any specific political candidate. Since super pacs are organized and run by millionaires and billionaires, they raise very large amounts of money that can be used to drastically attack or help candidates. If the government continues to place no restrictions on campaign spending amounts then the rise of super pacs may be avoided and there will be more transparency in a candidate’s campaign than without. If money didn’t have an influence on politics then the government would be less influenced by millionaires and wealthy corporations, therefore citizens of lower classes would have more say in the government. Although, restrictions on spending money could lead to secret transactions with foreign countries.
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.