A zero tolerance policy is a tough system of policing that was put into practice in New York, USA, in which even minor offences are punished. This means even crimes that are seen as minor like littering are taken more seriously and the penalty for doing so is stricter. The benefit of this is that in New York City, there was a huge percentage drop in the crime rate – 68% over a 6-8 year period. However, with both of these policies there is a concern of crime displacement, which means that if criminals see that crime cannot be committed in one are because of the risk, they merely move to another area. This has been referred to as an ‘urban apartheid’ in which the rich are protected but the poor are left in crime-ridden ghettos.
Outline and evaluate functionalist explanations of crime and deviance Crime and deviance can be defined as behaviour which breaks the law or goes against society's norms and values. Downes and Rock defined deviance as behavior which may be considered as banned or controlled behavior which is likely to attract disapproval or punishment. Crime is harder to define, however Pease (2002) defined crime and deviance as an action that is deemed so disturbing by citizens or disruptive to society that state intervention is justified. The macro perspective of Functionalism sees society working like the human body, this is described through the organic analogy. The agents of socialization work together to form equilibrium within society.
For example the large basins where homeless people used to bathe were replaced by smaller basins, making it harder for them to abuse this property. However the situational crime prevention method is criticised for only being effective when focused on petty opportunistic crime, and also for assuming that deviants make a rational decision prior to their act. Situational crime prevention is also criticised for failing to reduce crime, but simply displacing it. This is done through 4 ways: changing the space where the crime is committed, committing the crime at a different time, changing the target, or by committing a different type of crime. Another approach for crime prevention is environmental crime prevention.
The state is corrupt and corrupting. Bakunin believed ‘there is nothing more dangerous for a man’s morality than the habit of commanding’. The state is also destructive. It encourages individuals to fight on their behalf, at the expense of others. As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’.
The conflict theorist would argue that the law enforcement system perpetuates the inequalities and would give the example of how many white-collar crimes go unpunished. Read more: http://www.ehow.com/how_8586125_compare-contrast-functionalist-conflict-theories.html#ixzz2iJlpn5zx It sees a world in which everything has its purpose, allowing harmony to reign, most of the time. A functionalist, would claim, for instance, that the existence of poverty and low-paying jobs can act as an incentive for people to work hard and
A particular Marxist view of the relationship between crime and social class is known as criminogenic capitalism. For Marxists, crime is inevitable in capitalism because capitalism is criminogenic. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class – that is, on using them as a means to and end (profit), whatever the human cost of doing so. It is therefore particularly damaging to the working class and this may give rise to crime. Firstly Marxists believe that poverty may mean that crime is the only way the working class can survive therefore this results in the form of a relationship between crime and social class.
General deterrence is a punishment which aims to the whole society from committing similar crimes. This kind of punishment is used to generate fear in the general population through the offender’s punishment. How is Deterrence Related to Humiliation? I believe Deterrence relates to humiliation because it modifies a person for what they had done is wrong; this act deters them from repeating the same crime again. However, this is another way to show others potential law breakers the outcome if they were to commit the offense.
* First, in your own words define, then compare and contrast the following concepts: * General deterrence * Specific deterrence * Incapacitation * Retribution With General Deterrence the belief is that people should be punished severely to prevent others from committing the same crime. General Deterrence uses the person sentenced for a crime as an example to induce the public to refrain from criminal conduct, while Specific Deterrence punishes an offender to dissuade that offender from committing crimes in the future. Some crimes, such as crimes of passion and crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol cannot be deterred because the perpetrators don’t rationally weigh the benefits versus the costs before breaking the law. General Deterrence results from the perception of the public that sentences are harsh as opposed to Specific Deterrence which results from the actual experiences with detection, prosecution, and punishment of offenders. (Worrall & Siegal, 2012) Incapacitation theory focuses on the victim or potential victim.
Us Against Them In wars, in cruelty, and even in sports there is a force that allows humans to fight, to abuse, and to compete. We separate ourselves from our opponents; we dehumanize them in order to justify our actions against them. The examples of this are many, they are driven by fear, and they only hurt those involved. In Matt Ridley’s book The Rational Optimist, he shows that humans prosper when they do not separate themselves from each other. In John Steinbeck’s book, The Grapes of Wrath, he shows the cruelties people are capable of when they do separate themselves from others and District 9, a film directed by Neill Blomkamp, makes clear what can happen when people dehumanize another species.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,