When discussing how deterrence works at the environmental level, you first must know what deterrence is. At thefreedictonary.com the site says deterrence
“Discourages members of society from committing criminal acts out of fear of punishment. The most powerful deterrent program would be a criminal justice system that guaranteed with certainty that all persons who broke the law would be apprehended, convicted, and punished, and would receive no personal benefit from their wrongdoing.” (TheFreeDictionary.com.)
Putting the definition into a more simple form, a person or company who breaks the will have to pay the consequence set forth in the law. For example, the law of murdering someone comes with a hefty prison sentence, the prison sentence is the part that deters someone from murdering someone or there could be a lot more murders in the world. Now let’s bring that around to the environmental aspect of the discussion. Is the reason why most companies follow the law set forth because they want to be green and protect the environment or do just not want to face the consequences of paying the fines and cleanup costs that follow when a company’s breaks an environmental law. With most of those companies it is probably the later, but some companies do follow environmental laws because they think it is the right thing to do.
In order to federal and state agencies to enforce deterrence of environmental laws and statutes they had to write consequences into the law so companies and individuals would know the fines and consequences of breaking that law. For example, the Clean Water Act has different severities of punishment classified as negligent, knowing, or knowing engagement. Negligent person could come with a $37,500 per day fine a n...
... middle of paper ...
...rks Cited
Baliga, N. (2004, January 12). Polluters Face Little Threat Of Penalty. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-01-12/news/0401090614_1_polluters-clean-water-enforcement-clean-water-act
ForgaÌcs, N. (2010). Enforcing federal pollution control laws. New York, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.
Introduction: Environmental Enforcement and Compliance. (n.d.). EPA. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/region9/enforcement/intro.html
RCRA ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE. (n.d.). EPA. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/training/enforc.txt deterrence playV2('en/US/df/dfdfdsssdtsssyd5sdd5dnh5h5');playV2('en/UK/df/dfdfdsssdtsssyd5sdd5dnh5h5'). (n.d.). TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/deterrence
Week 3 lecture notes
...prevent harm and set peace for society. So by looking at this theory, we can prevent those who are being deprived of their rights in an unconstitutional manner and are of no harm to society, thus preventing them from uneccessary punishment.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
The aims of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. Punishment is used to punish the offender for their wrong conduct to an extent and in a way that is just in all circumstances and is intended to show public abhorrence from the offence. An example of a sentencing option that may be used to punish an offender includes imprisonment. A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ...
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
his paper will seek to analyze the privatization of prisons in the American Criminal Justice Penal System. “Privatization” refers to both the takeover of existing public facilities by private operators and the building and operation of new and additional prisons by for-profit companies (Cheung, 2004). The developments of private prison were a huge result of mass incarceration in America. Therefore, this paper will first evaluate how private prisons are considered to be a solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons in the United States. Next, it will examine private prisons to investigate rather it was an enormous solution to the mass incarceration problem in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it will seek to understand the idea that private prisons are less expensive to operate than public facilities operated by the state. Honestly, it will terminate the claim that private prisons cause an enormous economic growth, as development projects, in rural areas throughout the United States. Also, I will explain how the private prison industry has tremendously affected the black male and female rate of incarceration. Therefore, private prisons are not a feasible to the issue of mass incarceration; however, it does obstruct the reformation of mass incarceration by reinforcing the very same principles of the already faulty criminal justice system’s ideologies.
Case Study - Corporate Obstacles to Pollution Prevention. Overview This case focuses on corporate obstacles to pollution prevention. Pollution prevention can be complex, especially for large corporations. There are many different forms of pollution prevention, including emissions control devices and incremental changes in existing technology.
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the deterrence doctrine. The deterrence doctrine is dated back to its origins in the 18th century, known to be the Age of Enlightenment. During the 1700s to 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology became the focal point as it commenced to force attention on the “cruel” justice system. The two most influential scholars who have elaborated along the idea of deterrence are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria, known as the father of classical criminology, believed that people are “being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and trying to avoid being in pain” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 132). The classical criminology is primarily founded on the notion of liberal volition. That is to say that
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, which established nationwide standards for air quality, is one such “unfounded mandate.” Although it is a federal law, states must pay the cost of implementation and enforcement.
The Criminal Process in Environmental Regulation. (n.d.). UH Law. Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Environmental-Practicum-2014/syllabus/chap6.pdf
...ty. It is available to reflect the social values of a society such as new concepts of justice. The law Reform Commission of Canada is persistently submitting legal proposals that can be used to improve a society and it also serves as a crucial role to the structure of law and the government and the Canadian Criminal Justice System. A proposal that has drawn a lot of debate is the idea of whether environmental destruction and maltreatment should be criminalized. After examining the given themes, environmental harm should not be considered a crime. The undesirable outcomes of criminalizing environmental harm outweigh the positives of criminalizing such a reform. Although the environment affects people’s lives, so do the laws and regulations. This crime is too broad and may result in more harm than good in the Canadian society and the Canadian Criminal Justice System.
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
She makes two points of difference between the views of deterrence and the moral education theory. First, in the moral view of education, the state is concerned to educate its citizens morally so they will not choose the wrong behavior (Hampton, 276). Secondly, the criminal is not to be used for social engineering (Hampton, 276). The second point is important. Deterrence justification of punishment is often used as a warning or an example to others to not do this action. Eventually, that would be a side effect of any public form of punishment which the moral view of education does not rule out. However, deterrence’s means to the end is a social purpose, using the criminal as the
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle.