Sociology of Crime

Situational crime prevention is an idea criminologists use in order to reduce the chances of crime initially taking place. This theory does not aim to punish criminals after the crime has taken place like the criminal justice system does, but however the opposite, it aims to reduce the chances of the crime taking place to start with. Ron Clarke (2005) describes this theory as an approach that aims to reduce the opportunities out there for crime, involving rational choice theory. Clark focuses on three methods within this theory, directing at specific crimes, altering the environment we live in and aiming to reduce the benefits of committing crimes. Rational choice can have major effects when it comes to individuals committing crimes, rational

Agnew also points out another factor which contributes to criminal behaviour but which does not fit into the life domains; the factor of prior crime. I feel this factor is not analyzed enough in theories except for the labeling theory which explains that by attaching a stigma to an individual's life their deviant behaviour will only escalate. We focus on the steps which lead to crime but not the after affects of having already committed the crime. Agnew believes that although having engaged in crime the probability of future engagement foes increase, it does not always lead to further crime explaining that there are two factors which effect prior crimes; 1. how others react and 2. the characteristics of the individual (Agnew 2011, Pg 608). Each reaction to the crime will lead to a different outcome, for example if the offender gets away with the crime that fear of being caught slowly diminishes giving them confidence to continue with their delinquent behaviour.

Public shaming at times is not even a punishment for some, if someone does a crime they should also do the time. Public shaming can comes with serious consequences if given to the wrong person and if given to others it is just a slap on the wrist. Crimes should be taken seriously and so should the punishments. People should go to jail or do community service based on what they have done, they should not be let go so easily. The court system seems to think that by using public shaming a criminal will not do the crime again.

Yes, general deterrence may use certain individuals as an example for society, but if the punishment for that certain individual is strict enough and is able to deter others from society from committing crime it is doing its job. “General deterrence are actions to persuade others from committing criminal acts” (Couture, 2014, p.128). I feel more people are being deterred from crime by general deterrence rather than specific deterrence. Also as sanctions take place, incarceration would be best for general deterrence. Incarceration in jail or prison should deter society from committing crimes by people in society not wanting to be incarcerated.

Many people often confuse deterrence with retribution or punishment, but that it is not. Instead of serving your “debt to society” for a crime you committed, under the principal of deterrence you are serving your punishment to keep you and your neighbors from doing the same crime. Operating according to the deterrence model necessitates two principal assumptions: that imposing a stiff penalty will dissuade someone from committing crimes in the future and secondly, that the fear of this punishment will prevent future crimes perpetrated by others. (Wright, 2010) One very important idea here is that it is a “stiff” penalty, a penalty that others won’t forget. There are many faults in this argument, with the largest being the amount of faith put into mankind.

Isn’t it more likely this double standard would infuriate and incentivize the criminal to act even more unlawfully? Perhaps this pure speculation, but it is true if we were allow this seemingly contradiction (police following and breaking the law) to exist, we must ask ourselves if we trust our sovereign enough to know when it is appropriate to break the law for the betterment of society. I do not believe we are ready to do that, so we must continue to advance the consciousness surrounding entrapment law through future cases. Ultimately, we know imprisoning more criminals is also not the answer. If we can prevent people from being involved in criminal activity, we are succeeding in deterring crime.

There may be some situations when it may be necessary to must step off the position of power and leadership, and use the "Dirty Harry" technique. Klockars describes the "dirty victim standard" as meaning that all persons encountered by police officers in situation of enforcement, such as a traffic stop, must be considered guilty. The officer must take that stand in order to protect themselves. If the Officer finds nothing the person is merely innocent this time. However, this assumption doesn’t justify using dirty means.

Incidents like Williams case happens to often around the world. Even though racial profiling is a disgraceful method, some may argue that racial profiling is necessary measure to keep the world safe from unwanted threats. They will argue that Racial Profiling is an important measure to keep away terrorist activities and capture criminals who might be smuggling drugs or human trafficking. However, there are better ways to identify these criminals. Behavioral profiling should be the main form of identifying potential criminals because, instead of using race as a key point in identifying potentially threatening criminals, behavioral profiling uses someone’s behavior to identify criminals.

People, such as community development experts or law enforcement agencies, tend to oppose community development initiatives (CDIs) with the argument that using resources in this manner to reduce crime will be counterproductive since the crime will just relocate to another area. However, research has proven otherwise and has shown that spatial displacement is a rare occurrence. In fact, the od... ... middle of paper ... ...n. Retrieved from http://www.lisc.org/content/publication/detail/19654 Phillips, Catherine. (2011). Situational crime prevention and crime displacement: Myths and miracles?

In this particular type of deterrence, the state instills fear of punishment in the public, which in theory prevents them from committing crime (Akers, 16). Particular ways that the state has tried to deter the public from crime is through different types of policies such as the three strikes policy, capital punishment, mandatory prison sentence minimums, and programs such as ‘scared straight.’ The Deterrence Theory does not take much into account about criminals re-offending. It focuses h... ... middle of paper ... ...em to act in accordance with these labels and re-offend. This is known as secondary deviance, which Akers and Sellers defines as “continuing deviance created by the social reaction and by stigmatizing labels” (Akers and Sellers, 141). Had they not been incarcerated and given negative labels by those around them, they may not have internalized these negative labels and reoffended.