Green believes that the proper analysis for the relationship between retributive justice and distributive justice should be decided on a "case-by-base basis" and should take three distinct factors into consideration. The first factor is to determine the specific offense that the person is being charged with. In the second, we need to see how he was disadvantaged and if it's relevant to deciding his blameworthiness. The final one is where we need to "consider the economic and social circumstances of the crime victim."
There are three reasons why criminal law theorists should be concerned with the problem of poverty and other disadvantages. One of the reasons are that the poor and disadvantaged make up a high percentage of the crime victims as
…show more content…
This consists of three step. The first being that our legal system exists in a social contract and under this social contract, the citizens agree to obey the rules set in place in return for security from the state of nature. Which Hobbes', a philosopher, states is nasty, brutish, and short from the constant threat of war. Second, if people failed to follow the system's rules then they incur criminal punishment that would take away the unfair advantage they gained. So thirdly, you must imagine if the society was unjust, one that "breaches its obligation to its citizens." The citizens, then, would not longer be obliged to follow the law and without that existing duty to obey, the society no longer "has a right to punish for fo lack of …show more content…
For the first one, Green offers three clear and uncontroversial examples of disadvantage that the offender can experience: (1) denial of property rights, (2) denial of political rights, and (3) Denial of right to basic state protections. For the second, he explains that you will want to ask if the victim has suffered from unjust disadvantages, profited from unjust advantages, or experienced neither. For the last, he lists three offense: (1) against a person, (2) against justice, and (3) against
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
behavior, and the sentencing process. Such disparities allow the privileged enjoy constitutional protections. declined and that racial bias is essentially a consequence of strategies, policies, and decisions that unintentionally leads to racially disparate effects. The challenge of racial discrimination builds at every phase of the criminal justice field. from arrest through parole, rather than the result of the activities in any single phase.
Crime has always been a hot topic in sociology. There are many different reasons for people to commit criminal acts. There is no way to pinpoint the source of crime. I am going to show the relationship between race and crime. More specifically, I will be discussing the higher chances of minorities being involved in the criminal justice system than the majority population, discrimination, racial profiling and the environment criminals live in.
Reiman and Leighton continue to expand on the Pyrrhic Defeat Theory and ways how the criminal justice system continues to succeed by failing to reduce crime. They speak of some reasons why the policies enforced by the criminal justice system, maintain crime rather than reduce it. The system makes use of excuses as to why it fails at the reduction of crimes. While continuing to serve the interests of the powerful and maintaining the view of the poor being the most dangerous to society.
There are many studies that point out some risk factors that could be responsible for criminality, but it would not be appropriate to say that is specifically poverty or the current economy. This field of study is uncertain about affirming this kind of assumption. But all this discussion about Broken Windows Theory leads us to reflect why not try to prevent crime instead of act after the crime has been committed?
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
...n conclusion, like most things in the law there is no clear answer. There is no one-size-fits all solution for how to treat juvenile offenders. Even that term, “juvenile offender” contains a spectrum that includes the most minor misdemeanor and the most egregious sexual crimes. The Supreme Court has participated in this debate and voiced its approval of treatment and rehabilitation over punishment in the interest of public safety. The court, however, has also left the possibility of the states to hold juveniles to a higher (adult) standard on a case-by-case basis. This seems to me to be the best way to balance the obvious benefits of rehabilitative efforts and the interest of public safety. The best example I could find of a state who balances these two interests well is Oklahoma. The primary statutory goal of the Oklahoma Juvenile Code is to promote public safety.
Across the world, there are a great deal of people that are likely to become victims of offenses against themselves or their property. The criminal justice system is used to govern crimes and impose penalties on individuals that may violate laws. The criminal justice system is made up of different agencies that include: law enforcement, the courts, and corrections. Within this paper, I will discuss the roles of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the criminal, and the victim and how victimization affects each role. Also, I will inform you about the goals of sentencing associated with each role. The goals of alternative sanctions will be discussed. I will also let u know what recommendations I have regarding victims’ rights.
Crime is defined as an act or omission that the law makes punishable. There are different ways in dealing with crime. One, our current system, is the criminal justice approach. Also known as retributive justice, this system is more offender directed than anything else. The other system, which many people think is better, is the community justice, or restorative approach. The restorative approach is much more victim oriented. There is a debate over which system should be used to deal with crime. The two differ in many ways.
Drawing from tenets of Marxist theory, critical criminology believe that crime results from the mode of production by capitalist and the economic structures they have created. Social classes have been divided into two: those whose income is secured by property ownership; and those whose income is secured by their labor. The resultant class structure influences the opportunities of an individual to succeed in life and his propensity to engage in crime. Although it encompasses the macro-economic factors that are rarely included in micro-economic analysis of crime, it does not substitute those macro factors, like unemployment, to micro factors, like being jobless. However, it combines the macro and micro factors in analyzing how micro factors of crime are integrated into the macro structures.
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions.
Crime and criminalization are dependent on social inequality Social inequality there are four major forms of inequality, class gender race and age, all of which influence crime. In looking at social classes and relationship to crime, studies have shown that citizens of the lower class are more likely to commit crimes of property and violence than upper-class citizens: who generally commit political and economic crimes. In 2007 the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that families with an income of $15000 or less had a greater chance of being victimized; recalling that lower classes commit a majority of those crimes. We can conclude that crime generally happens within classes.
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.
In the United States there are specific areas that have been overwhelmed by the infestation of crime and violence and it appears to be at its peak in areas where poverty is high. Therefore, in this essay I will examine the connection between poverty and crime and attempt to prove relationships of the two. The link between poverty and crime is not a new discussion. In fact it has been an extremely controversial subject among many over the years. There have been arguments made stating that poverty does not have a direct link to crime based on countries that have very high poverty, however ...
I argue that poverty is the main cause of the increasing crimes in the society. It is quite evident that the aspect of crime and poverty normally go hand in hand. It is not possible to deal with crime without having to deal with some of the root causes which mostly are the aspects of poverty. Poverty can be basically referred to as the condition of choice and in most cases is the burden of the people that lack the benefits that the majority people have (Short, 1997). Normally, it is possible to hide wealth but it is never possible to hide a condition of poverty. There are two arguments regarding whether poverty is the aspect responsible for crime and whether crime can cause poverty. The families that go without the basic necessities in most cases could resort to theft. Therefore, I strongly hold that even though crime could have many causes, poverty is the largest of its causes.