Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment. The members of the Classical School of Thought believed that preventing crime was more important than punishing the criminal. When criminals know what the punishment is going to be for the crimes that they are going to commit it will help to deter the crimes from being committed. When people do commit crimes the crime is done of their own free will. This procedure of knowing the punishment with it being severe to the
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.
Assess the usefulness of functionalist approaches in explaining crime The functionalist approach to analysing deviance and the causes of crime looks at society as a whole. It explains crime that the source of criminal behaviour lies in the nature of society itself rather than in psychology or biology. Functionalists such as Durkheim see deviance as an inevitable and necessary part of society and too little is unhealthy. Some also consider crime to have positive aspects for society. In this essay we will assess the usefulness of these functionalist theories, and look at how it helps us explain crime.
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
Why do people engage in these violent criminal acts? Do people have the choice and free will or do individuals have certain traits that make who they are? Cesare Beccaria, the founder of the classical theory, “believed that criminals weighed the benefits and consequences of crime before choosing to violate the law. They would be unlikely to choose crime if punishments were swift, certain, and severe” (Siegel, page 84).
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
Mencken states that this is another point that is uncertain and can be argued. Those who are for capital punishment assume that the only reason capital punishment is wanted is to deter crime. This is in fact, not true. It is obviously one of the aims of punishment but not the only one. “They believe that we simply hang or electrocute A in order to alarm B so he will not kill C” (Mencken 145).
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
In the UK examples are the New Labour government’s initiatives on crime and disorder and reforms to health and social services. The idea of crime prevention involves the notion that it is better to stop crime occurring in the first place than simply punishing it after it has happened. The role of the criminal justice system is of course oriented to detecting and punishing crimes that have already taken place. But this fact itself has always been considered to have a preventative dimension. The high likelihood of detection by the police, and the deterrent effects of punishment have been seen as forms of crime prevention.
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.