3.0 Prevention There are two theories that attempt to explain how to prevent corporate crime: deterrence theory and compliance theory. Theories of deterrence focus on preventing individuals from committing crimes based on a fear of the consequences. Compliance theories, on the other hand, concentrate on the power of regulatory agencies to encourage individuals to comply with the law before crimes are committed. The biggest difference in these theories is the way that laws are enforced on corporate criminals. Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime after the crime has already been committed (ex-post), where as compliance theories focus regulatory agencies that encourage compliance with the law before the crime takes place (ex-ante).
There are few opportunities to give the police increased agency in actively pursuing criminals. If the police are given more power, perhaps they would be able to catch criminals before they could do serious harm to people. This rationalization is what leads to governments being sanctioned to set up cases which criminals may plead innocence due to entrapment. Of course, it is the goal of the police to set up instances and circumstances which are not affected by entrapment law. Entrapment is a defense to a criminal charge in which the entrapped individual becomes the victim of officials overusing their power in hopes of deterring crime.
A deterrence theory underlies in criminal laws and justice system to restrain from crimes. Corresponding to the definition, a deterrence theory itself simply means more strict and definite punishments will decrease the rate of crimes, including violent crimes, robbery, burglary, and even drunk driving and possessing drugs. The major goal for deterrence is to make people to avoid committing crimes because they do not want to approach unpleasant experiences and to reinforce people’s behaviors by strengthening the laws and justice system. However, the actual practices of this theory are not as simple as it looks. Walker pointed out few basic assumptions which are related to deterrence theory that may not work at the real world.
Preventing crime is very important, even though I believe that the first two responsibilities I mentioned also help to prevent crime. Preventing crime is very important, because police can deter individuals from committing more crimes or can even prevent them from committing a crime in the first place. Also, law enforcement can prevent a crime from happening by being present in the right place at the right time. When officers do their patrols of neighborhoods and busy streets, I believe that they catch a lot of people doing bad things. These individuals could be harassing other individuals or acting belligerent in public.
In addition, ninety percent of law enforcement officials believe that gun control will make agencies less efficient and will diminish their personnel’s ability to combat crime (Duke). In essence, implementin... ... middle of paper ... ...hrough illegal sources. Not only will individual citizens not be able to defend themselves as a result of gun control but unarmed citizens will not be as protected by the “third-party” effect gun owners create. Undoubtedly, gun control does not result in crime reduction because guns are not the problem it is the behavior of criminals that leads to crime. Works Cited Kates, Don B., and Gary Maunser.
The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages. The intimidation of particular groups has become widely known as a wrongful act, yet people surprisingly do not accept victims seeking justice to find peace within themselves by winning their court case. Adding an extra penalty to criminals as they go through the process in court would seem like a benign action to take, yet the idea of providing this advantage does not settle too comfortably in the heads of other non-minority victims. Ordinary criminal laws would seem to meet requirements for victims, yet targets of crimes never cease to get the most out of the loose interpretations of law.
On the other hand, the crime control model falls on the conservative view because they believe that some liberties might be sacrificed from the public in order to get rid of any type of crime. According to (Worrall, 2015, pg, 28), “the goal is to move criminals through the justice process with as little delay as possible. If mistakes are made along the way and someone is wrongfully charged or convicted, so be it.” This model is stricter because they believe that a suspect is considered to be guilty until he or she has been proven innocent. They are more concern on the criminal justice, rather than the constitutional rights of the people. Their main goal is to have absolutely no crime on the
The government is forbidden from engaging in continuous surveillance systems without warrants to look for offenders of crimes. As of now only career criminals are currently considered bad enough by the state legislature to justify such a system. It is possible that the cameras, or the data they collect, could one day be used for purposes other than speed enforcement, which may already be happening. This is a breach of privacy and should not be allowed. There are other ways to reduce speeds, such as the use of radar speed signs, that are every bit as effective if not more so than speed cameras.
The defence would also generally not be allowed access to the police statements of witnesses giving incriminating evidence against their clients. The Public Prosecutor serves the community and is a representative of the state; he should prosecute criminals with the mind-set that justice should be done instead of winning the case. In his eagerness to bring the criminal to justice, the Public Prosecutor may withhold evidence or statements that would otherwise be beneficial to the accused and this could lead to a wrongful conviction. Former AG Walter Woon has stated that public interest is the reigning consideration when it comes to criminal prosecution, and that cases are only brought to court where the Public Prosecutor is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of an offense. However this may result in the Public Prosecutor being biased and determined to nail the accused whether the accused is really guilty or not.
Curfew laws are not set for people who are obeying the law, but for those that have careless parents and attitudes. These people being the ones who are already breaking the laws. (Bodenhamer) Doing drugs, burglaries, and man... ... middle of paper ... ...st teens. Making it to where children have to be home by a certain time will help with getting drugs and crime rates off the streets. Though I agree that someone who wants to break the law is going to break the law no matter what, I still believe that having a curfew will only contribute to finding more out about those people who want to break the laws anyway.