For instance, an alleged criminal suspected of a crime has been convicted and this reinforces the views that the system can protect and serve the community. Society admires the idea of convicting people rather than letting them into the society again and risking the danger that can happen. In many cases, officers and prosecutors will use their power to arrest and indict the person that best fits the description of the suspect of the crime. Therefore, the alleged criminal will most likely be convicted based on the description and circumstances of the individual. However, this plainly shows that the system fails to aid the innocent who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong
Who determines what actions are punishable and what actions are not? Also if the same act is committed in one society and is punishable, could it be committed in another society and not be punishable? Though there is a worldwide understanding of severe crime commitment and its punishments, including theft, murder, or abuse. I would like to convey a point through numerous examples and research that in many cases certain crimes are committed in good faith. Moreover this paper will also show the different theoretical justifications behind criminal acts.
Utilitarianism, on one hand, holds that the morality of actions is dependent upon whether or not they bring about good consequences. Criminal punishment, whether it be through incarceration, deterrence, of rehabilitation, seeks to prevent future crime, thereby benefitting the greater good. Deontology, however, has some objections to these justifications. If the punishment does not prevent future crime, then by deontological standards, we are only inflicting harm towards a person without the benefit of the greater good. Also, punishing people is equivalent to using them as a means and not an end, a violation of human dignity.
The other key leader Bentham, argued that the purpose of punishment should be to show people that the cost of the crime outweighs the gains of it, he was a supporter of the use of prisons and thought that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and have predictable, certain consequences to deter people from future offences. One
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations.
But society´s sanction against crime is its self only moral if the crimes are committed with free choice. This makes the sanction just. So laws are not rooted in some common morality, or indeed in any common political or religious foundation, but against a constantly moving social and economic set of conditions. So the test of a crime against immorality may be a helpful one. Some crimes are 'wrong´ as in murder or rape and theft, but lying, it may be immoral, but it is not a crime.
Deterrence encourages the individual to calculate the costs of committing the crime. Convicted offender’s merit punishment proportionate with the seriousness of the harm they caused. This punishment is for the specific offense they committed and not for any other reason. If the punishment is too harsh it is counterproductive and results in a lack of respect for the law. If the punishment is too lenient, it will not serve as a deterrent (Henry, S & Lanier, M, 2010).
On the other hand, the Bond Gone Wrong Theory begs to differ. Focusing on what causes an individual to commit a criminal act rather than what prevents one from committing one, the Bond Gone Wrong Theory suggests that social bond can contribute to criminal acts. The Bond Gone Wrong Theory states that a social bond such as attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief can contribute to criminality. Moreover, it suggests that people commit crime as a result of three defining reasons. These three defining reasons include victim-retaliation, protection, and social control.
These characteristics are Barkan and Bryjak mentioned in the book that some “kinds” of people to contribute crimes than others. However, we should know that any of these explanations are not absolutely true and they just explain that some of our social characteristics influence chances of committing crimes. Works Cited Barkan, Steven E., and George J. Bryjak. Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice: What Every American Should Know. 2nd ed.
Similarly, the phenomenon being studied takes place after a behavior has occurred and must be a reaction to the behavior in question. It therefore includes the basic decision regarding whether to employ punishment as a control or to consider the fact that people are to be blamed for their harmful acts. Any theory must be testable, thus it must be stated in such a way that other people c... ... middle of paper ... ...er policies and crime programs as well as strengthen the existing ones. Through the understanding of criminal behavior and various patterns of crime, the criminal justice system is better placed when it comes to the prevention of a particular type of crime and easy apprehension of criminals due to the ability to detect their next move. 5.0 Conclusion Form the research carried out, it is evident that there is no single theory which can adequately provide all the explanations in relation to crime since a crime patterns entail several phenomena.