Yes, an individual should be punished for their crimes but the effects of a felony conviction should not include or affect that person’s right to vote, finding employment, or the pursuance of a higher education. According to Olivares, Burton, and Cullen (1996) upon release these offenders also deal with stigmas, loss of job opportunities, friendships, family relationships, and denial of civil rights. When it comes to the loss of job opportunities, a recent study has shown that most employers have hired at least one person with a felony conviction (Sawnson, Langfitt-Reese & Bond, 2012). Employers encourage job seekers with criminal records to be honest and willing to discuss their involvement with the justice system. Most employers did not have strict policies concerning hiring criminals and this is a plus.
Some offenders don’t understand that a crime is a crime no matter how many times they have committed with or without being caught. I also feel that some habitual offenders keep committing the crime or crimes because when they go to court they only receive a slap on the wrist so they feel they can do it again without any severe repercussions. If the offender keeps committing the crime than as I previously discussed I feel that the sentencing should be more
His view depicts crime decreasing due to more Police power, Gladwell believes if there are more police that people would commit less crime. I agree, if there are more police patrolling crime would be very minimal. I actually agree with both sides, you would have less crime if unwanted children are aborted and you would have less crime if police patrol more. Works Consulted Works Cited A smaller point to also consider: Gladwell left out one other major reason that, according to Levitt’s research, crime did begin to fall in the 1990′s: the waning of the violent crack trade. (Thanks to Darren Rovell for pointing out the Gladwell blog.)
I feel some crimes that have taken place in this country could have been stopped or lessened to a degree with a concealed firearm. The government can not ensure the 100 percent safety and wellbeing of all its citizens. For example the school shootings and workplace instances etc that happened in this country. But if there were more responsible law abiding people that had a concealed weapon on them some of these tragedies could have been avoided or at least minimized the damage that those criminals caused saving the lives of others is always a good thing. Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed.
Also, without the inclusion of rehabilitation programs offered in 2008 with their successes and failures, the reader sees only part of the “big picture”. It would be interesting to know the percentage of recidivism for delinquents attending these programs, such as anger management and violence prevention classes while incarcerated or not. By including data concerning available rehab programs, the reader, whether law enforcement or the private citizen, can gain knowledge about the rehabilitation this country offers and the degree of success. The article indicates that juvenile arrests, as a whole, were fewer in 2008 than in 2007. Burglary arrests were slightly higher 2007 and 2008, but remained markedly less than in the 90’s.
Since the 1990’s homicide rates have been in decline. Between 1991 and 2000 homicide rates dropped nearly 44% and have remained steady since. This decline in crime rate has been debated and analyzed since with everyone from politicians to police chiefs taking the credit. Policing and Crime Rate Community Policing is one of the programs many like to cite as having a direct effect on the crime rate. Theories about “Broken Windows” and reducing small crime reduces serious crime have been bandied about by Police Commissioners and Mayors.
Some police departments, such as New York, implemented the zero tolerance style and claimed that it lowered their crime rates in the mid 1990’s. The police became more arrest-oriented and focused on a more aggressive approach to crime control. They would increase their traffic citations, arrests, and increase their contacts with citizens. However, one of the issues with the zero tolerance style of policing is that it can cause some undue harm to citizens. By being too aggressive, it leads officers to become more suspicious of some people even though they may not deserve it, and can to lead to false arrests or abuse.
Retina or iris scans are high in accuracy for identifying a person but is not commonly used among identifying criminals. This particular process could be beneficial in identifying high risk and profiled criminals if the need arose. DNA is one human
While there is some concern that hot spot policing may only be effective in reducing in a small area and may cause crime displacement and diffusion many studies have shown that there is not a huge increase in crime in surrounding areas when hot spot policing is introduced. For example in the Kansas City study a small increase in gun crime was recorded in surrounding areas to the hot spot that was targeted but was nowhere near the decrease recorded within the hotspot. There is further evidence that hot spot policing does not simply displace crime in Weiberg’s 1920 study on prostitution and drug crimes. Figures 4 and 5 from this study clearly show that hot spot policing had a significant effect on reducing both these crime categories and that the surrounding area did not have a
Despite this, Positivists see official crime statistics as a reliable indicator of crime patterns. Positivists seek the causes of crime and over time can compare social groups and look for patterns in crime. The groups that are most likely to be convicted are young males, some ethnic minorities, inner city dwellers and working class. As not all crime is reported however, the statistics do not give a true picture. (Hallam et al.