Is it wise to continue to expend society's energies in the battle against crime with deterrence as a guide? Criminal deterrence has been divided broadly into two categories, prevention and deterrence, each of these categories has been divided further into two subcategories, special and general. In the broad usage, a deterrent is anything which exerts a preventive force against crime. Usually, but not necessarily, we are interested in the preventive effects of crime control measures which are introduced by law enforcement agencies . 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.
In order to gain a firm understanding of how strict liability strikes a balance between regulatory offences and the criminal law principle of moral blameworthiness, an in depth understanding how strict liability differs from the other regulatory offences needs to be established. Strict and absolute liability involves the Crown proving that a regulatory offence had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt without determining the fault element. True crimes on the other hand ensures that mens rea be established in order to convict the accused. The primary goal of strict liability is to establish that the individual’s actions were negligent and that they did not practice due diligence. Due diligence refers to a person’s ability to take “an active and reasonable attempt to prevent the commission of the prohibited act (Roach, 221).” It is through these differences that strict liability allows for the accused to prove that they exercised reasonable judgment and attempted to reduce negligence.
The theory of deterrence aims to prevent offenders from repeating the crime that they have been convicted of. Sanctions wit... ... middle of paper ... ...e and proportionate to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. That each case should be judged on the individual aggravating and mitigating factors associated with the offence and on the other individual details of the offence. The circumstances of the offender and the harm caused to the victim of the offence or to the community should have an impact on the severity of the punishment that the offender will receive. It is therefore accurate to say that punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
There are many approaches to dealing with crime. There are preventive methods that seek to prevent a crime from happening. There is also a punitive method of preventing crime that work by making the penalty for committing a crime very high. It prevents people from committing a crime and offenders from repeating the crime. This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders.
Hobbs, Beccaria, and Bentham provided the foundation for modern deterrence theory in criminology (Mutchnick, Martin, Austin 2009). Those who support Deterrence Theory are of the opinion that the degree of punishment affects an individual’s choice to obey or violate the law. Beccaria held the belief that the certainty of punishment, even if it is mild in application, would deter individuals from committing crimes more so than the fear of a more severe punishment that is combined with the possibility of impunity. (Mutchnick,et al. 2009).
The assumption that understanding criminal behaviour is the most important tool we have to combat the incidence of crime has prompted many philosophers, jurists, psychologists, psychiatrists, socialists and others to seek a plausible explanation for the commission of crimes. Their methods are diverse, some employing scientific means and others using empirical evidence to explore why people engage in “deviant” activity. The most convincing of these theories are those which explain criminal behaviour by reference to the individual, such as the classical theory, which views criminal behaviour as being the free and rational choice of the individual. The theory then offers proportionate punishment as a means to discourage people from reoffending or to deter others from acting criminally. Whilst the theory is not without it flaws, it is difficult to disprove such a theory in the absence of establishing the offender was not capable of rational thought at the time of committing the offence.
Hence, it appears that the laws expanded from the offence of deception , are principled within the criminal justice system. Not only does it prevent broadness, vagueness and indeterminacy but it arguable such offences provide depth, clarity and conciseness in order to outline acceptable standards of conduct within society.
In addition, due process model suggests that when individuals are charged with criminal activities, the crime justice system ought to protect them. On the other hand, the criminal control model banks on the assumption that the police facts are absolutely reliable and judges the arrested individuals as if they have already been found guilty. In addition, the model requires such individuals to be punished by the government. In contrast, the due process model views the arrested individuals
“The state is treated as the aggrieved party, and the alleged wrongdoer is the defendant” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Criminal laws are often referred to as substantive laws, meaning they are considered laws of crime. These laws are often defined by a status which both prescribes, what people should do, and proscribes different types of behavior, or what people should not do. Therefore, these laws are in place as a code of conduct for society to follow and prohibit things such as murder, theft, and assault. If a person violates one of these laws then it is treated as an act against both the state and the victim.
The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases.