The punishment has to fit the crime and for the punishment to be effective it must be swift, certain, and severe. The Classical School of thought has several elements: 1. People have free will to choose criminal or lawful solutions to meet or handle their problems 2. Crime looks attractive when it promises great benefits with little effort 3. Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4.
Because the overall objective of Restorative justice is to involve all stakeholders, it requires the assumption that crimes or violations are committed against real individuals, rather than against the state. It serves as an advocate’s restitution to the victim by the offender rather than retribution by the state against the offender. Instead of continuing and escalating the cycle of violence, it tries to restore relationships and stop the violence. Victims’ respond to this as a need because it helps them feel what they want to feel most and that’s safe. Some of the most important components a victim needs and desires are to feel safe, to have support and most importantly to have a voice.
Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done. If we choose to take the stance that our criminal justice system is mean to only keep society safe and that justice is carried out then we need to recognize that the laws we have in place currently are set in place to do so. In theory we could see how enforcing a harsher sentence to those who choose to commit violent acts or armed robbery would work as a deterrent to prevent criminals from committing the act as often as they do
Could be considered the conservative approach to the crime prevention module. Supporters prefer the “assembly line” (Worral p.14) method to expedite alleged criminals through the means of plea bargains to not clog up the courtrooms, which can be tied with quantity over quality. For example, meeting citation quotas or setting up DUI check points, which in essence is for the benefit of public safety; but can also be seeing as a way to increase revenue. One issue at the current moment would be the need for cameras on the uniforms of officers policing the street. The Due Process model would say that it is needed to make sure that officers properly follow procedures while questioning or detaining suspect on the street, in the case that something gets out of hand, a jury can see what actually happened.
Specific deterrence method focuses on the fact that if an individual is punished strongly for one crime, then they will not commit this crime again out of fear of punishment. With this method offenders find themselves going to secure, strict, even unsanitary facilities that drive them away from wanting to commit crimes later. In addition the experiences juveniles are subjected to while incarcerated are supposed to outweigh any benefits delinquent behavior will bring. An example would be having set mandatory sentences for certain crimes, that lets youths know that if they commit the crime then they will be incarcerated. Situational crime prevention stops juveniles by not enforcing strict laws that require harsh punishment, but rather by simply educating society
Within the rational actor model, the foundation of which is based around the classicist belief that criminal behaviour is a matter of conscious choice, exists 3 theories, namely ‘contemporary deterrence theories’, ‘rational choice theories’ and ‘routine activities theory’. The contemporary deterrence theory focuses on the swift and certain punishment that would guide a rational person to see that punishment far outweighed any benefits gained from committing a crime. This deterrent ideology is divided into two areas, namely general deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence is a display of what happens to offenders if they break the law to the general public, whilst specific deterrence uses punishment to discourage re-offending. High rates of recidivism however would suggest that this theory is somewhat ineffective.
Results seen from different methods are usually dependent upon a secondary factor. General deterrence is the most proactive as it aims to stop crime before it takes place. Simply by issuing a law and making it known there are consequences, one should be deterred with that knowledge. Examples of daily deterrence are surveillance cameras, electronic tags on clothing, metal detectors, and police visibility. All aimed to deter crime and common knowledge to the public.
These guidelines are given precedence over one another when the judiciary determines an appropriate sanction depending on the circumstances surrounding the offence. Incarceration is effective when the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and incapacitation are given primary consideration. However, when the principles of rehabilitation, reparations, and instilling a sense of responsibility in the offender are most important, restorative justice is a more effective alternative to incarceration. Therefore this paper will evaluate both incarceration and restorative justice within the framework of current sentencing purposes and principles and identify general circumstances wherein each sanction is most effective. Origin of Current Sentencing Purposes and Principles The purposes and principles of sentencing the judiciary uses today are relatively new additions to Canadian law.
Advocates of the punitive approach claim that juveniles need to be shown that their actions have consequences and will not be excused. They argue that the way to show juveniles this is through harsher punishment. Supporters are more likely to see juveniles as an adult as far as culpability goes, how responsible or blameworthy a person is for their
Opportunity theorists reject the notion that criminals are pushed and pulled into criminal behavior. Rather, these theorists assert that criminal offenders are consciously thinking individuals who actively choose to partake in criminal activities in their everyday normal lives. Opportunity theorists seek to explain why criminals choose to commit a crime in one situation and not another. This perspective is what they call an “opportunity theory” Opportunity theories wager that no crime would be committed unless there was an open and present opportunity to commit the criminal act. One approach that opportunity theorists seek in preventing crime is what is known as the routine activity theory.