First I am going to talk about the supporters. They believe that all youth should be responsible for their actions. Their key arguments are: Stiffer charges will make the youths think twice before they do the crimes; this will lead to lower crime rates in future. Youths who commit crimes are sent to rehabilitation, while sometimes their victims are left to suffer forever. The youth’s age shouldn’t be a bias factor for receiving punishments.
However the deterrence of crime does not rely solely on the idea of discouragement due to the implication of punishment. Juveniles commit crimes for several of reasons, and if the gain from the crime was the only issue that plays in juvenile crime then this sole method would probably work; however there is considerable elements to juvenile delinquency. This delinquency could be due to a juvenile’s culture or environment and that acts as a contributor. It is imperative to learn the particular reason why a specific juvenile has turned to crime so that it may be corrected. This ensures that juvenile offenders may have the chance to rejoin society as productive members.
Assuming that young, petty lawbreakers may be deterred from braking laws, simply by introducing the possibility of a public flogging, has some flaws to it. Jacoby neglected to bring up, what I would call the perfect argument to this topic. People who already intentionally commit crimes in today’s American society are fully aware of the possible repercussions for their actions. Despite this knowledge they continue to commit crimes that could land them in jail. I could argue that even more crime could result in effect to fewer prisonable offences and more humane forms of corporal punishment.
Like the item says, 'functionalist sociologists focus on how far individuals accept the norms and values of society.' Durkheim blames people not being fully integrated into society’s norms and values as to why they commit crime. So he said once people have served their time for their crime, they should be reintegrated. It’s a strength that Durkheim suggests them being reintegrated as it means they’re less likely to reoffend if they feel they belong to their society and do not look for status through crime. However, interactionists would say that agents of social control cause crime, not the society you are in.
There were several reasons behind this. One reason was to divert ones who would normally have no issue in committing a crime and for ones who have already committed crimes after their release not likely to return and serve a sentence. Penitentiaries also serve as a place to face punishment when one has committed a crime as well as encourage any type of personal reform for their actions. Penitentiaries are especially used to protect innocent people from these one who have committed crimes (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011). American prisons have two different types of models.
Rebuttal: If a juvenile has chosen to commit a violent attack on someone, then they have made the choice to act in an adult fashion. The justice system should treat the juvenile as the adult that they were trying to be at the time of the crime. Harsh sentencing can act as a deterrent to the juveniles who may consider on committing a crime. Giving light sentences does not teach the juvenile the lesson that they
Also, technology and managerial efforts’ failures are conceivable and it can be crucial in certain circumstances. Similarly, judges’ plan for placing yard signs is somewhat raise negative signal in the criminals, who wants to overcome his guilt. As a result, he would isolate himself from the society, and which in turn will produce negative outcomes. Then again, for the public safety, it is necessary to ratify different security mechanism despite the presence of moral and legitimate issues. So, it would be healthy to trace and map criminal’s residence to avoid potential threats of
If you ask anyone to describe crime in one word the first word out of anyone’s mouth would probably be “bad”. However, after watching “The Negotiator” people might change their view on the word. What Danny Roman did was in fact a crime, but because of rational choice theory we know there is more to the story than just the choice Danny made to hold hostages. Rational choice theory is a criminological approach that understands that people commit crimes (most of the time) under free will however; circumstances may affect the exercise of personal choice. Rational choice theory was reborn in the 1970s as a response to the failure of rehabilitation.
I will attempt to prove that the benefit of merely punishing criminals is minimal and that a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation would have far more overall benefit to society as a whole. A third important aspect to the justice system is keeping dangerous and violent individuals off the streets. This often seems to be equated with punishment, while the two are actually quite distinct and separate aims. I agree that there is often a need to isolate dangerous people from society at large, the question here is what our aims for the individual should be while they are in isolation. Emotion (1) Of the arguments one tends to hear in favour of prioritising punishment, the most persuasive are often emotional arguments.
The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.