Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sociological theories of crime causation
Canadian juvenile justice system history
Sociological theories of crime causation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sociological theories of crime causation
In addition, the demographic shift in the general population not only had an affect on the increase in the average age of the prison population, but has also increased the average age of admission. In fact, the average age of the offender population in custody is 33 years old and has increased slightly each year (Government of Canada, 2013). Similar to Quebec, an increasing amount of individuals are entering prison later in life. In 2009-2010, a little over 20% of admissions to federal custody were of offenders between the ages of 40 to 49. Moreover, these offenders are considered older when entering prison for the first time (Government of Canada, 2013). In Quebec, the increase of older offenders in prison is marked by the decrease of offenders …show more content…
Due to the increase of population through the aging Baby Boom generation, more people were at an age where they we more likely to offend than any other age cohort. In turn, since the majority of the Baby Boomers were at the peak in a criminological career, aged 18 to 25, this may be the reason that there was an increase of incarcerated individuals from the 1960’s to 1980’s (Boe, 2010). Moreover, this hypothesis may explain and take into account the older offender’s that are serving longer sentences or are career criminals. Moreover, South & Messner (2000) summarize the demographic hypothesis by stated that the changes in crime are attributed to the changing number of individuals represented in a population. Specifically, an increase in the number of older individuals increases the number of older individuals who commit crimes. In addition, the authors also suggest that changes in behaviours related to the increase of older individuals can also increase the rate at which older individual commit crime (South & Messner, …show more content…
Mandatory minimum sentences have been considered the trademark for the tough on crime agenda of the Conservative government between 2006 and 2015. Mandatory minimum sentences were set out to ensure that the severity of the sentence matches the severity of the crime (Mallea, 2010). This was a “one sizes fits all” approach that ensured that every offender received a mandatory minimum sentences for offences that provoke the most societal fear (Comack, Burgher & Fabre, 2015). As such, mandatory minimum sentences have directly influenced an individual’s sentence length as it has reduced the chance of any judge discretion to a particular case. The majority of mandatory minimums were introduced between 2005-2015 (Department of Justice, 2015). The mandatory minimum laws were implemented to provide harsher minimum penalties as well as new frameworks for crimes related to drug offences, firearm offences and sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentence were enacted for crimes related to treason, first and second-degree murder, in which the offenders will serve 25 years in prison (Allen, 2017). In 2013, there were 4,800 offenders serving life sentences in Canada (Chang, 2015). The second category is composed of 16 offences which all include the use or possession of a firearm.
The Canadian Criminal Code (1995) stated the main principles of sentencing as “to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions” (s. 718). Section 718(a-f) considers the factors sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter, to separate, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations and to promote a sense of responsibility.
Canada’s criminal justice system largely focuses on rehabilitation, but Bourque’s harsh sentence is similar to the sentencing practices of the United States (Gagnon 2015). This is troubling as Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system appears to be working. Canada has a low rate of recidivism for offenders who have been convicted of murder (Gagnon 2015). Research shows that Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system has also worked with crimes that are not as severe as murder. Between 2010/2011 and 2013/2014, there was a 12% decrease in completed adult criminal court cases. Most cases in adult criminal court involve non-violent offenses (Maxwell 2013/2014). Similarly, in 2013, the police-reported crime rate was at it lowest since 1969 (Statistics Canada). The homicide rate is also declining, as in 2013, it represented less than 1% of all violent crime (Statistics Canada). Notably, probation was the most common sentence given in adult court cases and custody sentences were less than six months (Maxwell, 2013/2014). These types of sentences showcase the rehabilitation focused thinking of the Canadian criminal justice system and reinforce the impact and possible repercussions of Justin Bourque’s
Laub and Sampson (2003) believe that age-graded informal social controls are crucial in understanding persistence and desistance in offending, although more research is necessary. Laub and Sampson (2003) argue that certain turning points in life influence persistence and desistance in offending through informal social controls highly associated with the age of the individual via intervening mechanisms. The age-graded informal social control theory aims to explain persistence and desistance, thus explaining important aspects of crime over the life course. Persistence and desistance are explained through age-graded informal social controls such as marriage, employment, and military service and their accompanying intervening mechanisms making the relationship between informal social controls and persistence and desistance somewhat more complex.
In Canada, over two-dozen offences in the Criminal Code carry mandatory minimum sentences. These offences include first and second-degree murder, a series of firearm-related offences, impaired driving and related offences, high treason, and gambling offences (Gabor and Crutcher 2001). Although there are so many crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences, they are not the best way to reduce crime in Canada.
Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for the commission of a criminal offence. Mandatory sentencing was mainly introduced in Australia to: prevent crime, to incapacitate the offenders, to deter offenders so they don’t offend again, to create a stronger retribution and to eliminate inconsistency. There is a firm belief that the imposition of Mandatory sentencing for an offence will have a deterrent effect on the individual and will send a forcible message to the offenders. Those in favour argue that it will bring consistency in sentencing and conciliate public concern about crime and punishment.
What is about to lead us into another boom in crime and thus population in prison is the economic downturn. Crime rate rises in areas of high joblessness and poverty. It’s fair to say those that will commit crimes will regardless
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
Canada reached its utmost population rate in 2013, with 15,000 inmates; this is a drastic increase of 75% in the past decade. Incarceration rates are rapidly increasing as crime rates decrease. Upon release, former prisoners have difficulty adapting into society and its social norms. Criminologist, Roger Graef states that, "the vast majority of inmates, the loss of local connections with family, job, and home sentences them again to return to crime." Prisoners often result in lethargy, depression, chronic apathy, and despair, making them ultimately rigid and unable to assimilate back into the public. Depression, claustrophobia, hallucinations, problems with impulse control, and/or an impaired ability to think, concentrate, or remember are experienced by prisoners who are isolated for a protracted amount of time; research has indicated that prisons can cause amenorrhea, aggressive behaviour, impaired vision and hearing, weakening of the immune system, and premature menopause. With the lack of system programs, the constant violence, and the social isolation, the prison system fails to prepare prisoners for reintegration to society. Prisons do not provide the proper structural functionalism to rehabilitate former long-term prisoners into society.
Canada is a country where rehabilitation has been a formal part of sentencing and correctional policies for an extended period of time (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Furthermore, a group of Canadian researchers have examined the methodology and effectiveness of rehabilitation, and are principal figures in the correctional rehabilitation field (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). However, despite rehabilitation being a central aspect of Canadian identity, there has been a shift in the justice system’s objectives. The rise of the Conservative government and their omnibus bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, has created a move towards retribution. Bill C-10 was passed on March 12, 2012 (Government of Canada, 2013) and was a proposal to make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system. Law changes included new and increased mandatory minimum sentencin...
Mandatory minimum prison sentences are punishments that are set through legislation for specific offenses. They have been used throughout history for different crimes. The four traditional goals of punishment are: deterrence, incapacitation (incarceration), retribution, and rehabilitation. With the state of our national economy, cutting prison and corrections costs would be a huge savings. On the surface, it may seem that mandatory minimum sentences would serve the traditional goals of punishment. They would discourage potential criminals, keep society safe for longer periods of time, they would punish the offender and they would rehabilitate the offender. What they did not do, however, is take into account the individual circumstances of each case and each defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective and they should be repealed.
Many factors may have led to the decrease in crime, but there are five very plausible explanatory factors as causal to the crime decline. The first is the demographic change, specifically referring to the changing composition of the population (Rosenfeld, 2011). Crime is a young mans game, and the aging of the baby boom generation is an important factor behind the drop, because older populations generally commit fewer crimes (Rosenfeld, 2011).
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and Deviance over the Life course: the salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609-627.
During the 1970s, the mandatory sentencing policies have increased the inmate population and prison costs. with the increasing number of inmates who has been considered to be rehabilitated, but they are still growing old on parole and ends up dead in prison which has an affect the effectiveness of the prison system in this country. Most, prisons in the united state of America are struggling to furnish the costly specialized care to the inmates who are suffering from aging-related issues such as dementia.
ELDERLY: SHOULD THEY SUFFER IN PRISON OR SIMPLY BE RELEASED? Karenna Cruz American Public University System. This paper will explore the question of whether the elderly imprisoned and in deteriorating health should reside in prison or be released. Should the government continue to house and pay the expenses of keeping the elderly incarcerated, or should they be released if they are simply near the end of their life and are unable to commit any further crimes? The Concerns of Keeping Imprisoned Elderly Offenders Today, there are prisons across the United States of which house elderly inmates who can barely walk, talk, and function within their daily life without the help of prison employees or volunteers.
Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Schmidt, N. M., V'Asquez, B. E. and Bernburg, J. G. 2012. Labelling and cumulative disadvantage the impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58 (3), pp. 457 - 478