(Crime control model) This paper will compare and contrast the role that the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy. Some of the differences between the due process model and the crime control model are in the due process model people that are arrested are perceived to be innocent until proven in a court of law. The crime control model believes that the people that are arrested are guilty and need to be punished by the government. Another difference with both models is the due process model believes that policing within the criminal justice system is essential to maintaining justice within society. The crime control model believes that the arresting of people in the criminal justice system has a negative effect and slows down the process of the criminal justice system.
The bonds that discourage crime are strengthen through relationships between the individual and social institutions such as the family, schools, judicial/policing systems etc. Here, crime and delinquency simply become the products of the systematic failure of social supervision over the deviant individual. While social control theory places great importance upon the normative morality in a given society, the theory still presumes variations in morality in the given society. Derivative hypotheses of social control theory such as self-control theory see crime as the result of the lack of personal self-control (rather than societal control) over deviant desires, abnormal personality attributes and antisocial constitutions. Nevertheless, social control theory stresses the idea that people in a society are likely to commit delinquent or criminal acts when the forces restraining such actions a... ... middle of paper ... ...erica have largely implemented these practices as viable methods to deter crime.
Feinburg (1994, cited in: Easton, 2012: 4) says that punishment is “a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment”. When punishing an offender there are two key principles that determine the kind of punishment. These are the Retributivism response and the Reductivist response. The first principle, Retributivism, focuses on punishing the offence using 'denunciation' where they denounce the crime that has been committed so society knows they have done wrong, and it also uses 'just deserts' where the equity 'eye for an eye' is the main idea. The second principle, Reductivism, believes that deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation is the best strategy to use to punish, its aim is to reduce crime and use punishment to serve a purpose.
Question #2 There are several aspects within deterrence that are important to understand when discussing the theories of deterrence and labeling. According to the deterrence theory, there are two different classifications of deterrence—specific and general. First, specific deterrence is defined as apprehending an offender and punishing him or her which will refrain them from repeating crimes if they are caught and punished by the criminal justice system (Akers and Sellers, 16). Secondly, general deterrence is defined as the states way of punishing society for a crime that they have not committed, while using a certain group of people who have committed that crime. By doing so, those who are in charge of punishment, inflict fear on members
I believe that the labeling theory is the better then the social control theory about explain the various types of crimes that people commit, by the following examples. “The labeling theory has become part of many criminological theory of sanctions that includes deterrence theory’s focus on the crime reduction possibilities of sanctions, procedural justice theory’s focus on the importance of the manner in which sanctions are imposed, and defiance/reintegrated theory’s emphasis on individual differences in the social bond and persons’ emotional reaction to that label (Paternoster, R,
Researchers questioned how and why certain people became defined as criminal or deviant. Many theorists viewed criminals not as evil persons who engaged in wrong acts but as individuals who had a criminal status placed upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. From this point of view, criminal actions themselves are not significant; it is the social reaction to them that are (Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2010). This point of view is called Symbolic Interactionism. Developed by George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, and Herbert Blumer in the early twentieth century, they claimed that deviance creates a process of social definition which involves the response from others to an individual's behavior; which is key to how an individual views himself.
Through the study of psychology, specifically free will, determinism and social identity, we may find that situational crime prevention is a better means to deter crime in our nation. The debate over the proper course for effective crime control can be traced back to the famous treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” written by Cesare Beccaria in 1764. Beccaria’s work implies (rightly so) that potential law violators would be deterred if government agencies could swiftly detect, try and punish anyone who violates the criminal law. This exercise in disciplinary power is noted by Jokiranta; “In order to get hold of the hearts and minds of the members, the community has to get hold of their bodies” (Jokiranta, pg 10), and has been adopted by systems of criminal justice since their beginning with the London Metropolitan Police in 1829. Along with this approach came the stigma that criminals were predominantly born of poverty and misfortune.
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.
The Contribution of the Labelling Theory to Our Understanding of Crime and Deviancy We can call a label, or define it as; a mark, name, or even badge. Something is only deviant, or becomes deviant because someone has been successful in labelling it as, deviancy is ambiguous, definitions differ from society to society or even culture to culture. Calling something deviant is a reaction to a type of behaviour. The labelling theory is very complex, it asks why some people committing crimes are named deviant but others are not. Labelling theorists believe when you label offenders as criminals, yobs, this has negative consequences, deepening and worsening the criminal behaviour.
Secondly, the theory connotes that stigmatization inherent to the shaming of crime is disrespectful because it tends to outcast individuals from the general community, which is a pre-requisite for further rebellion. Additionally, the best theory of re-integrative shaming is the “disapproval of an act within a continuum of respect for the offender, disapproval terminated by the ritual of forgiveness [leading to] crime prevention” (Dansie, 2011, pp. 71). The proposed Re-integrative Shaming Theoretical approach identifies that shaming (or social disapproval) creates emotional distress on the offender. The scope and extent of the shame are bound to vary because different people respond differently to shaming.