In the eyes of the general public, “once a criminal, always a criminal” but this is an unfair assumption to make. For years the getting tough on crime approach has been very popular among politicians because criminal activity is looked down upon by virtually everyone in society and politicians use this to try and gain support for their party. When you think about getting tough on crime, things like longer harsher sentences are ways to crack down on offenders but there is no real evidence that increasing the penalties for crimes actually works to prevent them from happening. Overall getting tough on crime does not work because harsher sentences do not impact criminals, it costs the tax payers a lot of money and our society today does nothing to prevent crime in the first place. The first reason why getting tough on criminals does not work is because for the most part, they are not deterred You must Login to view the entire essay.
Types of corruption include the acceptance of gratuities, disregarding “inconvenient laws,” role malfeasance, bribery, property crimes, criminal enterprise, denial of civil rights, and violent crimes. Accepting inappropriate gratuities is the most common form of police corruption (Walker & Katz, 2011). Common citizens, usually business owners, will often offer police officers free services, food, or other gratuities for multiple reasons. Usually, gratuities are motivated by a desire to thank police officers for their service. However, sometimes these citizens expect special favors from the police such as extra patrols or not receiving tickets or charges for minor offenses.
Criminal Justice scholars and investigative commissions have documented police lying under oath. (Cliffnotes 2010) The most well known is the 1994 Mollen Commission Report. (Cliffnotes 2010) This commission was charged with reviewing reports of police corruption in the New York Police Department. (Slobogin 1996) The Mollen Commission found that police perjury was an epidemic. (Slobogin 1996) The study showed that good cops lie the most because they honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free.
People see thug culture on television and in video games every day which makes it more of a norm in society when it is really not. Hollywood movies and the media’s depiction of gangster make criminal behavior more acceptable and corrupt the minds of youth. Some people may think Hollywood movies, and the media’s constant display of gangster does not hurt anyone and it is just for show. People will not think criminal behavior is more acceptable because of music, movies, and video games because it is not real. Individuals understand that in those forms of entertainment, it is all for show and no one actually gets in trouble or even hurt.
The overall purpose and meaning of this article is to send the message that police officers can play a unique part in disrupting the disorder process. If police officers focus on less serious crime and disorder of a neighborhood then serious crimes like felonies will not be able to surface as much. This is because the community will participate more and become more social, and they will develop their own set of rules. A main section of this article that I want to point out is the idea that foot patrol decreases crime rate. In the article it states that police officers didn’t like the idea of foot patrol too much but because they did it relationships with the community was formed and people were less afraid to go outside.
Essentially he states that the root of the problem is a need to belong and the fraternities meet that need but they have a side effect of membership that is destructive drinking and other foul activities. The only way to disprove his argument is to eliminate fraternities and sororities and then see if the amount of binge drinking is reduced. Needless to say, Bruffee is fairly safe in his argument because fraternities and sororities are a way of life and culture that isn’t easily brushed away. It is definitely easy seeing his need to “desperately belong”. Like he says, most group learning does not take effect until the major classes of a study are taken.
According to his book The Crowd: A study of the popular mind (1985) being in a crowd offers anonymity on an individual and therefore personal level. Social inhibitions are decreased, especially when suggestibility and contagion are combined1. Deindividuation occurs when an individual feels that he can behave outside social norm, e.g. acting violently, or commit a crime when thinking that responsibilities are not completely on him or in the hope of not getting caught. According to Le Bon, it is when an individual feels deindividuated, that it enables him to behave in an antisocial manner despite not acting this way in more normal situations.
This method helps the children to know how to behave with alcohol and also does not give them the urge to sneak around and act a fool with alcohol. The third reason is that traffic accidents and deaths will occur no matter what the legal drinking age is. There are many adults over 21 that get DUI’s or that have been in accidents. It is due to being irresponsible with the alcohol age may have nothing to do with it. The fourth reason is if the drinking age was lowered it would make drinking more of a social, normal, and casual thing.
Probation may have been a good idea when it was first went into effect but, I do not feel that probation is structured and does not work for the most part. I feel probation is controlled by politics. I think probation is given to reduce the problem of overcrowding. I also feel that when there is not enough evidence but the judge has to reprimand to look good in the eyes of society that probation is offered. In the future, I feel probation programs should be changed and only offered to first time offenders or crimes that are considered low on the poll.
An opposing view might say that a smoke-free campus is not a big issue to deal with. They may argue that pollution is caused by many other reasons than just smoking. Although smoking can put your health as well as the health of others at risk anyone can go to the doctor and be treated. They may argue that smoking is not a big issue for people who inhale second hand smoke because you can easily just walk away from the smoke. Although there are a lot of smokers who attend college I would say I still agree with a completely