damage to property. The ‘elimination costs’ include costs to society including funding the police force and the prison service. These costs may be calculated using the principle of opportunity cost. The net economic cost of crime to society is thus the difference between what gross domestic product would be if there were neither criminal nor crime prevention activities, and what GDP currently is, given the present state of crime and prevention (Sharp et al, 1996). Thus, there is an optimal level of crime for society.
The principle of commensurate deserts addresses the question of al- location of punishments that is, how much to punish convicted offenders. This allocation question is distinct from the issue of the general justification of punishment-namely, why the legal organisation of punishment should exist at all. In arguing that the commensu... ... middle of paper ... ...system, for example, these are the type of crime of which the offender is convicted and certain "enhancements" Based on violence or property loss in commission of the present crime and on the prior criminal record. Once one identifies the determinative factors, one can examine whether and to what degree they relate to the seriousness of the criminal conduct (or to the extent and severity of the person’s past criminal record). To the extent those factors are not so related, persons whose criminal offense (and criminal history) are the same can receive unequal sentences.
Substantive criminal law, which is the written code that defines crimes and their punishments, reflect mainstream society’s values, opinions beliefs (Siegel, p.12). As it relates to consensus view of crime, the term “consensus” is used because it suggests because there is a general understand amount society as a whole of what behaviors are deemed intolerable and therefore should be considered criminal acts. Criminal behaviors are the behaviors that violate the criminal law. Acts are not considered to be crimes unless those particular acts are considered to be illegal based on the criminal law. As mentioned in “Criminology” by Larry J. Siegel, criminal law can be defined by as a body of detailed and specific guidelines about... ... middle of paper ... ... commit the same crime and based on each of the individuals characters, or how remorseful they are after the fact, explains why one may be sentenced more harsh than the other, this is definitely why first offenders usually get what we call a slap on the wrist.
This approach uses the notion of deterrence in monitoring criminal behavior. Sanctions are imposed in an efficient manner in order to prevent the criminal act from occurring again. This paper will examine the pros and cons of the economic analysis of criminal law first in general and then with respect to punishments, and will show that while adequate way to think about how enforcement of criminal acts works, it is still a weak theory in certain aspec... ... middle of paper ... ...nal law enforcement model within boundaries of tractability will respond to the criticism of modeling oversimplification. My position is that as the current theory stands there are several weaknesses with re to institutional aspects. Therefore, developing a more institutionally oriented model to derive policies will be very useful.
There is a third justification for retributivism, which states that the weight of the criminal offence stems only from the individual’s own act and not anywhere else. Thus, retributivism reflects the principles of desert and proportionality in pursuing justice because it justifies punishments to deserving parties in equal value to the severity of the criminal act. In other words, a person’s criminal deed(s) follows with its own punishment. Retributivism states that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crimes. In this theory of punishment, individuals are only punis... ... middle of paper ... ...m fails as a theory of punishment that punishes persons in proportion to their moral desert.
Instead of viewing these theories as contradictory, preferring the one and ignoring the other, it is contended that Gabriel Tarde’s (Wil... ... middle of paper ... ...ponse to their situation to support their view. There is a valid place for social theories such as the strain theory because, through understanding social factors which may put people at risk of committing crimes, actions directed towards alleviating the strain will result in prevention of crimes by removing some reasons the offender may have to commit the crime. The classical view of criminal behaviour which states criminal behaviour is a rational decision made by the criminal is, provided that the offender is capable of rational thought, indisputable and is the most convincing explanation of criminal behaviour. As a society then, we need to work towards making crime a more unattractive option. Relieving the strain is one way.
Also, punishing people is equivalent to using them as a means and not an end, a violation of human dignity. Therefore, deontologists justify punishment by looking at it as a necessary act. We must punish criminals for their wrongdoings in the name of justice. If good consequences come out of it, that is just an added bonus. Arguably the most important aspect for punishing criminals in the eye of a deontologist is that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime.
In this case, an interest in the broad deterrent effectiveness of these measures is an interest in their crime preventive effectiveness by whatever means prevention is achieved. Accordingly, a person contemplating the commission of a crime would undertake a cost-benefit analysis and would execute the criminal plan only if potential benefits sufficiently outweighed expected costs. In addition to theorists, courts have adopted the rational actor model as a justification for the imposition of certain penalties, specifically the death penalty for the crime of murder. Under general deterrence theory persons are punished for violating the criminal law to serve as object lessons for the rest of society. Society, according to the theory, thus transmits the following message.
In the article, the anterior part indicates the supporting reasons of death penalty, the posterior part indicates the cons. Support Reason Deterrence of punishment Becker (1968), first of all, assumes that the crime is bad which incurs social loss, it should be deterred, death penalty is the severest punishment, and potential criminals are normal individuals. Because individuals are rational, the potential criminals also are rational. They commit crime as maximization of utility. The opportunity cost of committing crime is the net utility from legitimate activity.
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.