Breaking The Law Does NOT Alter A Person's Behavior

Operant conditioning applies to the enactment of criminal statutes in many ways. Society has been studied to determine what acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are. As a result of these studies and the enactment of statutes, they have identified those actions by citizens that are not desirable or dangerous

One of the most important purposes of laws in the world is just to prevent that nothing bad happens to us, for example how a society could survive without traffic driving laws? It is impossible, we need to have rules that shows us the way we have to drive, the signs we need to respect, the light we need to observe, when to stop and when we should pass, and the consequences of breaking the laws.

All societies have rules and regulations as well as penalties for those who violate them. There are numerous theories about the philosophy behind these laws and punishments, and the reasons we implement them. A short analysis of two of these perspectives can shed light on the differences between the various ideas while illustrating that, in reality, each theory carries some validity.

Beccaria: I have a different theory regarding crime and delinquency. In my opinion, all individuals possess freewill and rational manner, which means that they make rational choices based on that freewill (Lombroso 2002, pp.272-273). Rational manner is the explanation of the relationship between laws and crime as it means that individuals rationally look out for their own best interest and personal satisfaction. However achieving satisfaction may lead individuals into activities considered as crime by the society. This clashes with the interest of society to preserve the social contract and stop criminal behaviour through punishment (Greek 2005).

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

While the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department. We welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of envi- ronment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

There were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

In this essay, I am going to discuss what some of the ideas are when it comes thinking as to why deterrence does not work, which could be that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment for many of the crimes committed. It could mean that it does not work because the offender maybe becomes aware of the punishment. However, it could be because of the notion of impulsivity which connected and is almost everywhere within a society where there has been a connection to the idea of rational choices, which has a role when it comes to the way people have been thinking about committing the crime of any shape or form. However, there have been many reasons why it doesn’t work, because the offenders come from many different walks of life within a society. Therefore, the kind of crimes that have been done, which can then have associated with rational choices, which have people are connected to in society.

In criminal justice, the function of reading and thinking is crucial when working in the field.The act of thinking is a wrongdoing of the law of those who are lawbreakers. Therefore, The consequences of committing these crimes lead to justifiable punishments such as jail time and death sentencing. In accordance to the law of respective societal norms of each readings, these consequences are justified by the law of the society that proceeds the destruction of individuals mind. Having this in mind, the function of these consequences is to obtain order and stability in control of the

A Deviance is generally this behavior is law breaking/ criminal behavior. I choose for this assignment to study and exam the drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is the process of growing , selling and distribution of narcotics This is a highly illegal and dangerous but is billion dollar trade. Smuggler and dealers do most of the distribution and sells of the narcotics.

If criminal law in any society represents social consensus or agreement, it is called consensus perspective. Whether the person’s behaviour is criminal or not the society will go through various talks, share fundamental values and people will reach to an agreement. Due to different cultures, religions and customs the fundamental values of the societies differ. Therefore, according to consensus perspectives some behaviours are criminalized but other are not and on the same perspective one’s behaviour criminalized in one society is decriminalized in other societies.

The general public does not comply well when rules are enforced strictly. If new rules were to be implemented, society could turn into an anarchy from rebellion and all is lost.

In his critique of Austin’s work, Hart believes that in making coercion and sanction a central component of the nature of law, Austin imagines a world filled with “bad men”, a term introduced by Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe a person who is more concerned with avoiding the adverse consequences of disobedience of the law (or using Hart’s terminology, a person taking an external point of view). However, Austin overlooks the fact that most people in a society could be considered “puzzled men”, which describes a person who is prepared to comply with the law, as long as they are told what they have to do (or again using Hart’s terminology, a person taking an internal point of view). Therefore, Hart maintains that Austin’s account of the nature of law overlooks the fact that most people take an internal point of view towards the rules. The majority of people do not take into account the sanctions that may befall them if they do not comply; they simply comply because they see the law as a reason to modify their behaviour.