Second that the criminals targeted by the improvements were dangerous people who must be incarcerated because lesser sanctions would not be effective in limiting the illegal behaviors. The Third mandatory prison sentences would reduce crime by incapacitating or discouraging the dangerous offenders who were targets of the improvements. With the carrying out of the improvements there was unique growth in the size of federal and state prison populations. Finally, the massive increases in incarceration that resulted from the improvements have been distributed unevenly throughout the population. In specific, there has been a geographical clustering of incarceration.
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.
This may be because Black Prisoners often enter from impoverished backgrounds with higher rates of violent crimes; therefore “import “their cultural norms which condone violent behaviour. The other model of institutional aggression is the deprivation model. This claims that the characteristics of the prison itself is the reason rather than the prisoners. They argue that it is the experiences of imprisonment that causes extreme stress and frustration which in turns leads to violence. Sykes argues how the loss of freedom, heterosexual relationships, isolation and boredom leads inmates needing to engage in violence which is a reaction to the hurt they feel.
The prisoners did wrong things, so they are already being punished, as Buchanan’s second conclusion, “That those really responsible for the abuse, on a deeper and more systematic level, still should be brought to justice.” The guards’ responsibility is to take care of the prison, not to misbehave with the prisoners. As a result, if prisoners were punished for their bad deeds, then of course the guards should be punished, too, for abusing the prisoner, because it wasn’t their right to treat them badly. If a guard hadn’t interfered in the prisoner’s life, then the good people have never turned into bad, and this world would have been better. Human nature is like when everyone acts nice to each other, then they are nice; and when someone tries to hurt one’s feelings or ego, then everyone turns to violent behavior. That’s where crime begins.
The people that Shelton killed are considered combatants because they support they governmental system and work with it. Based on Just War Theory, the proportionality of killing these people is that their deaths are outweighed by the justice that will bring to the judicial system. Shelton believes the system to be corrupt, focusing instead on conviction rates rather than making sure the right person is placed behind bars. By killing these people Shelton can put a new mindset into the “system” because those affected by the killings will want the right man punished rather since they now know how it feels to be wronged. All the killings made by Shelton were to people who were directly showed how flawed the system was.
The three strikes law was implemented in 1993, it was created to act as a strong deterrent as well as to identify and incarcerate habitual offenders by enforcing minimum sentence lengths. The advocates of the law propose that it keeps violent and serious criminals behind bars therefore reducing crime rate. Those opposed suggest it overfills our prisons with aging criminals that eventually hamstring our economy. Overall I believe the three strikes law does more good than harm, and Ill examine articles that go deeper into these matters. According to Eugene H. Methvin, a large portion of violent crime can be prevented with an effective strategy of identifying and incarcerating the individual, keeping him/her off the streets; saving society much
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.
Do you prosecute that as a hate-crime, just because it might be? One group of people is now getting special treatment under the law. That sounds lot like discrimination to me, which isn't how this country is supposed to work. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups?
Society argues that criminals should be punished with lengthy jail terms for the security of society. However, the outcome of this objective would allow the offender to return back into society so that he/she can become a productive citizen. Moreover, offenders are given the opportunity to gain rehabilitation and education while they are incarcerated. This result brings up another question. Is the justice
Critics believe modern law is more concerned with the consequences of crime and less with the moral imperatives.  When a crime is committed the person should be convicted. Mental illness could be taken into account at the time of sentencing. Several states have accepted this reasoning, the insanity plea is abolished and replaced with guilty but insane. This verdict carries a criminal penalty, the defendant is sentenced to a hospital prison and the defendant must prove he is no longer dangerous or mentally ill. Advocate of the insanity defense believe that a fundamental principle of criminal law is a stake.