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. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
Predatory violations is an illegal acts in which a person decided and intentionally takes or damages another person or others property. Cohen and Felson (1979) explain the criminal event through three essential elements that meet in space and time in the course of daily activities: (a) a potential offender with the capacity to commit a crime; (b) a suitable target or victim; and finally (c) the absence of guardians capable of protecting targets and victims. The lack of any of these elements is capable enough to prevent the occurrence of a successful direct-contact predatory crime. The term target is partial to the victim, which might be completely absent in the setting of the crime. The target can be a person or an object, whose place or occasion puts it at more or less risk of culprit attackers.
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
It is necessary for those who refuse to accept unjust administration of punishment. Capital punishment is often justified by saying that by executing the murders birth of new murders would be prevented. Executions especially when they are more painful and public create a sense of horror and halts those tempted towards criminality to violate laws. In countries such as Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria and New York crime rates are exceptionally high and this affects the population there. The police also works inefficiently in these countries and the criminals easily escape from punishments.
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 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.
First is to increase the effort of crime by target hardening, access control or by monitoring entrance and exits areas. Second is to increase the risk of crime by extending the guardianship or strengthening the surveillance. Third is to reduce the rewards by reducing the benefit of crime such as concealing or removing the targets. Forth is to reduce the provocations, to eliminate and avoid this kind of provocation it is need to reduce frustration and stress on every individual, avoid disputes, reduce emotional arousal, neutralize peer pressure, and discourage imitation and fifth is remove excuses, in every store there are different sets of rules, this rules must be posted in every corner this will make them aware of the existing rules or policy of the store and it will also guide them. All employees must be alert as well in detecting shoplifter, upon entering the store there bags must be check and prohibited items must be placed in baggage
In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of crime. Through Raskolnikov’s ability to rationalize murder and evil, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of what a crime is. By depicting Raskolnikov in a way that he rationalizes his acts, it can be understood that the concept of crime is dependent on the situation and the outcome. With this, one can question whether crime will remain as a crime even if it results in the benefit of the majority of the population. In this paper, I will be arguing the concept of what crime is through the situations and the outcomes shown in Crime and Punishment, with the help of true to life crimes.
The penalty for a crime must be one that creates the right amount of deterrence. The way to set the right amount is by estimating the benefit a criminal is set to gain from committing the said crime and setting a penalty and likelihood of getting caught that is more damaging to the criminal then what he stands to gain if he commits the crime. Since deterrence is a crucial part of the model, it would seem that it may be redundant or even harmful to punish someone if they committed a crime negligently since it is almost impossible
Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.