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? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
The construction of social problems, by people or activist, have given rise to a false or exaggerated belief that cultural behavior or cultural groups give way to dangerously stereotyping that poses a threat to normal society. This “moral panic” is directly related to many contemporary issues such as terrorism, politics, and most importantly crime. Over the years “moral panic” has been perceived as threat to societies values or norms. In order for “moral panic” to thrive, it is first created by framers, sociologist or activists who use “moral panic” as means to justify there issues through a presumption of exaggeration and manipulation of statistics. This paper along with three articles, The Social Construction of Serial Homicide, Moral
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,
The threat of terrorist attacks changed American culture immensely; the devastation wakened the need for protection and a sense of security. Dramatic measures were taken in order to protect this country, so foreign relations were severely affected. Post 9/11 government saw the “link between immigration and security”, and that by changing foreign policy it would “reduce the likelihood of future attacks” (Krikorian 567).The safety measure in airports were countless from metal detectors to full body scans. “The immigration system has being penetrated by the enemy”, the officials realized which led to unfair accusation of innocents (Krikorian 568). “Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559).
However subcultural theorists developed this idea claiming that people experiencing strain seek different forms of success. More specifically Cloward and Ohlin put forward the idea of the 'illegitimate opportunity structure’, which they used to explain subcultural crime. This structure was operable outside of the mainstream structure and ultimately lead to the attainment of success and money through deviant means. For example, Cloward and Ohlin argued that organized crimes such as the drugs trade could be explained by failures in mainstream capitalism. Cloward and Ohlin argue, that the majority of criminals involved in the drugs trade were unable to succeed within capitalism and were driven to an illegitimate means of obtaining wealth.
Asses the usefulness of labelling as an approach to the study of crime and deviance In the study of crime and deviance, most approaches other than Marxists, suggest that there is a difference between those who offend and those who do not, and search for key factors that lead people to offend. However, there are a group of theorist who reject this idea and instead suggest that most people commit deviant and criminal acts, but only some people are caught and stigmatised for it. Although the labelling theory is quite prominent in the study of crime and deviance, there are endorsers and criticisers who both give valid accounts to why this theory should be, or not be taken as a valid theory. Labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a social process usually related to power differences but it doesn't explain the causes of crime. It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance.
The intoxication model suggests that individuals will not use rational thought while intoxicated which leads to the addiction model which states that crimes are committed so the addict can support the habit (WSSAC,2009) The systemic model states that crime occurs when the participant of the drug trade sales the drug. For instance, the use of drugs influences criminal behavior while the distribution of illegal products is a crime. Last is legal model. In this model the individual choices to either abide by the laws that have been enacted to address drug use, possession, and distribution or the person can choice the path that breaks these laws. The war on drugs has become top priority for justice members.
Bennett’s chapter against the legalization of drugs he speculates that the legalization of drugs would remove the criminal stigma that currently labels drug users. Bennett theorizes that a removal of this stigma would take with it the hesitation felt by the majority of people who see no positives in a life of crime. He is talking about every drug which one would agree that such a broad decriminalization would send our country into a downward spiral filled with addicted citizens barely able to function within society. The hard drugs that Bennett describes are in fact a danger to society such drugs like PCP, heroin or crack cocaine. However, he barely touches on the fact of marijuana alone.
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
In the article titled “The Folly of Capital Punishment”, Jeffrey Reinam concludes that capital punishment is immoral to our society; and thus, should not be legalized. Reinam reasons the death penalty is unjust, inhuman, and goes against the progress of civilization. Reinam’s primary argument and rebuttal to Ernest Van Den Haags deterrence argument, is that the death penalty goes against the advancement of civilization. Reinam explains that throughout history we take steps to "lower tolerance for one's own pain and that suffered by others". Due to the states high visibility, size, and moral authority, it is capable to have an impact on citizens beyond the immediate act it authorizes.