But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
Although, some laws are brutal, they are necessary to keep order in the community and crime at a low. An example to represent a fair law in the code of Hammurabi is, “If he has broken the limb of a patrician, his limb shall be broken.” To put the quote in simpler terms, it states, “If you break a man’s limb he’ll break yours.” This is a fairly honorable law. If a person breaks someone’s arm they should expect a consequence and this is not exceptionally crude. A law such as this one is created to keep balance, peace, and reduce violence. Even though this may seem strict to some; the victim who endured the limb breaking would have to disagree.
Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, it would seem that justice would be better served if they too were killed as they had planned to kill another human being. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims and this should be altered.
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.
Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4. Punishment that is severe, certain, and swift will stop crime They believed in fast punishment instead of long trials. One of the major parts of criminal punishment reform was for fair and equal treatment of accused offenders. Judges could punish criminals however they wanted to no matter how severe the crime. 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.
However a weakness of the upbringing approach is that it can be considered a reductionist because it ignores biological causes of crime. This can be seen in Sutherland’s theories as he presents one theory, ‘criminal behaviour is learnt’, and Sutherland believes that criminals’ behaviour isn’t inherited or as a result of any other biological condition, ‘without prior influence people are incapable of inventing behaviour’. This theory provides a good explanation for certain types of violent crime, but it cannot be applied to crimes
Delinquency Deterrence Response The threat of punishment does deter juvenile delinquency by general deterrence which means that crime control policies that depend on the fear of criminal penalties, such as long prison sentences for violent crimes. The aim is to convince law violators that the consequence outweighs the benefits of the crime or criminal activity (Wadsworth, 2005) If more severe, certain, and swift the punishment is the guiding principle of deterrence theory then the effects of the deterrence is greater. Since the increase in teenage violence, gang activity, and drug abuse was a result of not punishing adolescents severely as adults were so that juvenile justice authorities would not interfere with the parens patriae philosophy, which means A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf (West,2005), prompted a reevaluation of deterrence strategies in the 1990’s shifting an emphasis on treatment to an emphasis on public safety in some juvenile courts (Wadsworth, 2005). This would allow officers to enter schools undercover to identify and arrest juvenile drug dealers and to allow judges to be more open with charging juveniles as adults leading to doubling the total of juveniles under the age of eighteen from thirty-four hundred in 1985 to seventy-four hundred in 1997. This and the legislators passing more restrictive juvenile codes seems to have an overall beneficial effect on the delinquency rate and that is that it has declined.
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.
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
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.