A deterrence theory underlies in criminal laws and justice system to restrain from crimes. Corresponding to the definition, a deterrence theory itself simply means more strict and definite punishments will decrease the rate of crimes, including violent crimes, robbery, burglary, and even drunk driving and possessing drugs. The major goal for deterrence is to make people to avoid committing crimes because they do not want to approach unpleasant experiences and to reinforce people’s behaviors by strengthening the laws and justice system. However, the actual practices of this theory are not as simple as it looks. Walker pointed out few basic assumptions which are related to deterrence theory that may not work at the real world.
There are many controversial issues related to policing. One that sticks out is police discretion. Police Discretion is the exercise of individual choices or judgments that police officers have concerning possible courses of action (Cox, p. 227). Saying that police Discretion needs to be abolished is an unrealistic goal, but better supervision of patrol officers and better departments policies and procedures on the use of discretion is something that we can try to achieve. Police discretion is usually more seen in minor crimes (Ross, p. 98).
Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim. General crime legislation serves the purpose of protecting the public, yet only certain motivations of crimes enable the judiciary to assign additional charges to a defendant guilty of a hate crime. The protected rights of citizens are believed to guarantee peace and tranquility. The most recent additions to everyday crime legislation have challenged this peace and created chaos between the supporters and opposers of these changes. Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias.
(Crawford and Evans, 2002) Although we may see this as an effective technique many have concerns with it. This theory of crime prevention also appears to ignore the individual themselves and put blame on the victim, this theory focuses on the environment and how our society causes criminals to commit crimes rather than blaming it on the offender themselves, as it focuses so solely on the opportunities available for the offender. This also includes the victim, how the victim provides opportunities such as not having double locks on the door, it hints at the idea that the victim has provided the opportunity for the offender, taking the blame from the offender to the
According to the authors these approaches are part of the interventions of hot spot because they include things like razing abandoned buildings and cleaning up graffiti. However, the increase of misdemeanor arrests of offenders contribute to the crime control in hot spot but not as much situational efforts does (Braga and bond 2008). Authors stated that situational crime prevention strategies are essential for addressing crime in hot spots rather than the aggressive order maintenance of arrests in high disorder places. In other words, if police officers only make arrest in hot spot this will not effectively reduce crime because they need to develop a more complex approach to deal with high crime areas ( Braga & Weisburd , 2010).
The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group. From a liberal standpoint (and the standpoint of many non-liberals as well), it is important that every individual has the right to equal existence amongst their fellow human beings. Therefore, Altman’s justification for regulation of hate speech appeals to an intrinsically valuable liberal belief. Altman’s prescription not only appeals to the concerns ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing its targets down, therefore people must learn to successfully overcome the feelings that it intends to induce. Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it.
This dual requirement substantially limits the potential for federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes, even when the crime is particularly heinous. Hate crimes demand a priority response because of their special emotional and psychological impact on the victim and the victims’ community. The damage done by hate crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of physical injury or dollars and cents. Hate crimes may effectively intimidate other members of the vi... ... middle of paper ... ... Law."
Although these people face blame for their undesirable actions, it is beneficial to make an effort to understand their problem (Kaukinen, 2002). Solving their alarming problem would significantly reduce the crime rates in the society and encourage the realization of a better environment. Although suicide and homicide it not acceptable in the society and by law, the vice is still being practiced in prisons. This has continued happening despite various effort to eliminate the vice. However, effective application of policies, laws and procedures has the potential to reduce such behaviors.
(Maguire, Morgan and Reiner, 2012) Wilson and Kelling argued that if behaviour such as graffiti, rowdy behaviour, drunkenness and vandalism is un-tackled this can turn stable neighbourhoods into broken down neighbourhoods with fears of crime. They further argued that behaviour that is left unchecked likewise properties can lead to a breakdown of community control. This is because bad manners causes fear which leads to avoidance and some residence moving away, this promotes informal social control that paves the way for more extreme types of violent behaviour and crime. To stop the breakdown of community control, Wilson and Kelling proposed that any unfavourable act should be tackled immediate. If not, this leads the way for individuals to push the boundary and attempt more serious crimes.
In the three readings by Loffreda, Johnson and Gladwell, minor factors are conquered in order to prevent their cities from entering a negative pattern that can lead to the decline of a city. By setting positive examples in the city, it can lead to positive patterns and imitation. The Tipping Points unraveling in the epidemics that lead to the “crime” focus on the environment rather than the actual people involved. But is this true lately? Since the theory suggests the solution to “minor” problems, it is leading to unlawful arrests and even murders by law enforcement officials.