A Philosophical Perspective on the Regulation of Business

Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.

Changing social values: The values of societies change over time. Society is forever changing values which then place’s pressure onto the law to change and adapt over time. What is seen as as acceptable may not be considered acceptable at another time. The urge for tougher sentencing in law reform may satisfy the deserved aspects of punishment, but harsher penalties are not statistically shown to reduce crime rates. Thus in seeking to promote social values for tougher penalties it undermines our social value for fairness and the concept of justice for the individual.

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

A major part of the independent growth was the legal system that America had formed. While they adopted many of the essential elements of the English legal system, they had major differences in the American legal system (Brinkley, 2012). For example, punishment was different from England’s, instead of prison or the gallows, the Americans took a different route. The forms of punishment in colonial America was whipping posts, branding iron, stocks, and the ducking stool (Brinkley, 2012). The colonists thought of law as reflection the divine will or as a result of natural order, not as an expression of power (Brinkley, 2012).

The specific aims and purposes of criminal law is to punish criminals, and prevent people from becoming future criminals by using deterrence. “Having a criminal justice system that imposes liability and punishment for violations deter.” (Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley, Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, Oxford Journal of Legal studies, volume 24, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-205). Criminal law

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

In addition to our other rights, we have the rights to enforce the law and judge on our own behalf. We may intervene in cases where our own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. When victims are judging a crime; they likely to judge it of greater severity than an impartial judge. As a result, there will be miscarriages of justice.

In this paper, I will review what my initial thoughts on the criminal justice and how they have evolved after taking this class. When I first came into this class my original definition of justice was “everyone in society should be treated equally, fairly and with respect no matter what.” After going through this course and seeing different perspectives I feel that my definition has stayed the same. It covers a broad idea of how people should be treated but is specific enough for everyone to know what it could reference. I don’t believe an eye for an eye type of punishment is fair even though someone committed a crime like homicide it doesn’t give anyone the right to kill them for what they have done. This is why our country has a justice

Ultimately, the very reality that comes as a result of over enforcing too many laws in turn creates a wide variety of problems within a society that show in a wide array of arenas. Similar to over regulation on behalf of the government in any sort of economic facet, over enforcing penial code creates a standard that lacks the trust bond necessary to a formidable republic and imposes heavy strain on the ability for nature’s moral code to drive the morality of the individual as well as the collective society. Larking cites an example noting that “If the penal code regulates too much conduct that is beyond the common law definitions of crimes or that is not inherently blameworthy, several problems arise: It becomes a formidable task for the average person to know what the law forbids, since the moral code offers no lodestar”; thus encouraging a guilty society given the fact the law enforcement officials will almost always have “probable cause” to make an arrest on anybody in any given circumstance (Larkin, 2013). Although it it’s difficult to deny the need for comprehensive criminal justice reform at the time in which it was carried out, there is no denying the interest of political influence in the manner in which the process was carried out. What is left now involves a system that enforces penalty that has become grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime and gravely effects the lives of its very own citizens in addition to placing an economic strain on the

Our modern penal system can be traced all the way back to Hammurabi’s code in ancient Mesopotamia. Under his law, a policy of “an eye for an eye” was enacted in order to punish criminals. Further, if a person was accused of a capital offense and found not-guilty, then the accuser would be put to death. The same way that our laws in the United States apply universally to all citizens, Hammurabi sought to create a system which could be universally applied to the different peoples he conquered during his tenure as king.

These fluctuations in criminal justice policies are not just in local governing bodies; these changes are an effort to adapt to a new technologically based modern age, and that goal of adaptation radiates to all ends of the earth, thereby having a global reach. As all societies, and populations of people alter and change, and belief systems ebb and flow, the rules and laws that govern such people must change with them. It is imperative that a governing system stay current, for without an ever-changing system of behavioral structure then those societies race faster toward

However, one universal law is not fit to provide justice for all nations. For some, justice may mean the individual that committed a crime receives jail time. For others, it may mean monetary reparations proportionate to the severity of the crime of which they were a victim. When attempting to secure justice for a certain group, it is important to consider the context of their culture, and the ways in which they differ. An international system of justice would likely be heavily influenced by Western values, and these laws would not suffice to provide justice to groups, individuals, and members of different cultures worldwide.

It can be argued that ‘crime’ can not hold one simple definition which applies to all. This is because we recognise that what is regarded as deviance in one society may not be so in another society, making deviant behaviour culturally relative, Bilton, T (1981). This therefore means that how different cultures will respond to the same crimes will be different, because in some societies a certain crime is considered more extreme than in others, and therefore deserving a more extreme punishment. For example, adultery in some societies is considered a mortal sin, and if caught can result in being sent to death, whereas in other societies it is merely a part of everyday life, and almost considered normal behaviour. This therefore begs the question of what is the correct response to criminality? In the case of a convicted murderer, it is thought that five things should be done in order to bring justice to society; prevent the man from murdering again, reform the offender, use the offender

Why obey bad laws? According to Estlund, democracy is dependent on citizen obedience to legitimate procedural outcomes-independent of correctness (70:75). Citizens are to obey legitimate democratic decisions, even when these outcomes are believed to be mistaken (77). Estlund argues that the correctness of democratic decisions lies within his theory of epistemic

There are tаx regulations and actions to mitigate aggressive tаx planning and tаx avoidance. The aim is to align the tаx paid with the real economic activities reducing the tаx loss suffered by tаx authorities in the countries where the economic activities are done.