Even though, changes should be introduced to the system of penalty to adjust it to the needs of each particular community, it is still one of the most effective measures of combating and prevention of the crime. Thus, the abolishment of capital punishment will do more harm than good, as it has proven to bring justice to the suffered and helps to decrease the crime
An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.
The difference is that while utilitarian seeks to discourage wrongdoing, retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished. In this case, X committed a crime and should be duly punished but there is also a need to discourage her from committing any more crime especially by addressing the underlying causes of her committing crime. According to utilitarian theories, laws are made to bring happiness to the society. This means that crime and punishment should be kept minimum to ensure there is happiness in the society. The activities of X are criminal and caused sadness to the family of student L. Even though a crime free society does not exist, punishment must be inflicted on wrong doers in order discourage
Though there are core principles and guidelines, the way each case is handled is heavily based on context. The main objectives that drive restorative justice practices in sexual violence cases are “reparation, retribution, and rehabilitation of the community” (Wolthuis et al., 2015). Restorative justice seeks to find a way that “maximizes healing for all parties and minimizes the chance of the process inadvertently causing harm” (Restorative justice standards for sexual offending cases, 2013). Particularly in sexual violence cases, the primary focus in a restorative justice case is to lower the potential chances of harm. The principles are set in place to allow the victim to have a chance to hold the offender accountable while having the opportunity to voice one's story.
Many of them have argued that mobility, poverty, and heterogeneity undermine neighborhood connections and social links, which majorly contributes to the breakdown of informal social control resulting in the increase of crime rates inside society. The presence of informal social control can help to contain crime to some extent, but the absence of it results in the negative. Criminologists suggest that factors related to economic backgrounds have a key role to play in this matter. Studies have been conducted on several families in accordance with economic standards. The results shows very clearly that people belonging to poor economic backgrounds often lose their faith in the structure of the social system, and then they tend to involve in criminal activities for either having a good life in future days (only in the sense of good economic status) or to express their anger on the system by being an outlaw.
In restorative justice the offender pays back for the crime committed by taking responsibility and fully acknowledging their actions, that includes repairing the harm and restore the relationship while allowing the victim to know what happened. By so doing, victims and the community are willing to find closure from the truth behind the incident while this give parties a platform to hear and challenge each other’s stories of the incident directly and express their feelings. Basically, this imply that legal practitioners are determined with imposing a penalty for having transgressed the law while on the other hand, restorative justice looks beyond that. In other words, this asserts restorative justice as a humanistic approach, as it doesn’t create a platform of dirtying and tarnishing the reputation of the offenders or making any of the parties involved feel guilty about the
If there is no criminal law, the victim or the family member of the victim could punish or even kill the person by saying that they are doing it only to gain the justice. As can be seen, criminal law is very important to protect everyone by preventing the physical harm from
If the party was a suspect of a crime, then the communication may be of use. It is actually dependent on the how materialistic the communication is. Scenario 2 Continuation of the full mediation process to seek for the mutually agreed settlement completed the mediation by both party signing the mediation settlement agreement. Then the case is reported to the
People from families that have poor communication find it difficult to join social circles. As such, these individuals have very few social identities due to their limited social life. Deephouse and Jaskiewicz (2013) support Cannella, Jones, and Withers’ (2014) statement. According to Deephouse and Jaskiewicz (2013), families are the key influence on an individual’s social life, consequently identity. They base their research on the performance of firms that are family based and those that are non-family.
The school was concerned with the development of a rational, systematic and efficient way to fight crime rather than understand the nature of it (Hughes, 1998). Additionally, classicism tried to understand crime as “a product of a rational free will”, Hughes (1998) continues, and a criminal act was seen as something chosen and as a result of the calculation of pain and pleasure involved with the crime (Hughes, 1998). Besides, punishment, as Hughes (1998) depicts, was seen as “an instrument of social control to achieve certain desired ends” and it must be warranted, effective and profitable. Furthermore, classicists believed that it was better to prevent than to punish (Hughes, 1998). During the Enlightenment period, new theories about crime, punishment and new ways of rationalising justice arose (Newburn, 2013).