Criminal Deterrence Research Paper

The Canadian criminal justice system is often represented by the balanced scales of justice. These scales symbolize the need for the law to be viewed objectively in order to ensure a fair determination of innocence. Ideally, the criminal justice system should incorporate the values of the scales of justice to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law (Jordan, 2014). When dealing with crime, this system mainly uses methods of retributive justice in order to achieve its goals. However, despite justice being supposedly impartial, there is an overwhelming amount of injustice in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the charging of the individuals in court to their sentence in prison (Jordan, 2014). To combat this

Canadian Criminals are a major part of Canadian society. In our country if you were not the direct victim of a crime you tend to forget the members of society that take pleasure in causing societies grief. As in the case of James Hutchinson and Richard Ambrose, whose crimes were committed in December of 1974.1 They were convicted of killing two Moncton City Police officers. Today, years after the murders were committed Ambrose and Hutchinson are still the center of a major controversy that has plagued our parole system. In order to fully understand the controversy that Ambrose and Hutchinson posses you must look at the

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

Other punitive measures, that have developed out of the just deserts mentality, such as three-strikes laws, which required life sentences for those with three convictions, as well as Scared Straight programs and boot camps, have negligible or detrimental effects to recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences and lack of rehabilitation actually increases the likelihood of reoffending (Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA], 2011). While using punitive measures in the name of retribution may make those in society feel safe, there is no evidence to support this approach.

One of my favorite shows on T.V is “Criminal Minds,” show stories of the existence of the FBI’S Behavioral Analysis Units and how expert profilers work with the FBI to search and capture rapists, serial killers that terrorize society. However, after watching a number of episodes, one can’t help but question or wonders if what they watching are real. In the real world, every day in the United State law enforcement officers is called to respond to horrify murder scenes. What is the mission of the Behavior Analysis Units? “The mission of the Behavioral Analysis Units (BAU) is to provide operational support for difficult and time-sensitive cases and other matters through the application of investigative case experience, education, specialized

Reiman and Leighton comprehensively begin the discussion of crime by outlining their main objectives, establishing the immediate problems surrounding crime control in America, and setting the groundwork for their premises. In recent years, the crime rate in the United States has declined. This decline is generally attributed to ‘tough on crime’ and mass incarceration policies, but the authors are quick to assert that other variables--economic, social-- are greater contributors to this decrease, with the ‘imprisonment binge’ only actually contributing a small amount to the decline. These strict crime enforcement policies might have a small impact on crime prevention, but criminologists are concerned with the potential effect such policies might have on criminal justice procedures--promoting profit rather than safety-- and endangering citizens’ rights (particularly those considered minorities).

Deterrence does not fit the crime. The main aim of deterrence is to deter people from committing a crime by fear of future punishment and is mostly focused on violent offences. The Government used a method of CCTV to deter crimes such as violence, shoplifting and criminal damage in town centers, but unfortunately it does not work as was expected because these crimes just move to

How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the

In today’s media, countries such as the United States are portrayed as having corrupt legal systems which are responsible for mass incarceration. However, many do not know this is also a problem in Canada. New bills have recently been put in place to incarcerate more people for non-violent crimes. The poor are being kept off the streets by being sent to prison. Different races make up a small population in Canada, but a large population in its prison system.

A lot of Canadian youth face issues such as living in poverty, living in violent neighbourhoods and sometimes that leads to them becoming young offenders. In order to help these youth become positive contributing parts of Canadian society the impact that the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Safe Streets and Communities Act has had on them must be studied. Therefore this essay will address the questions of whether the purpose of the legislation we have to deal with youth offenders is to rehabilitate youth or punish them, and whether or not the method being used by the Canadian government is effective in allowing young offenders to create and lead a stable life after being released from jail. This paper will argue that the main goal of the

To formulate the law, it was decided that the most valuable approach to reduce violent crimes was through a mandated policy decision requiring identification through past behavior of those who demonstrated clear conduct to participate in violent criminal and whose conduct was not discouraged by the usual concepts of punishment. Reed (2004) stated, “The overall purpose of punishment within the criminal justice system is to prevent the commission of crimes to deter recidivism. For this objective to be successful, punishment must be effective in addressing the problems and solutions for the entire system, not just in individual cases” (p. 502). In reducing crimes, various methods and theories are taken into account. Some of these methods are additional police, additional courts, mandatory sentencing, and increased prosecutorial resources (Reed, 2004). Because the Three Strikes Law varies from state to state, this leads to the many problems it causes in the criminal justice system.

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

In the Conservative Party conference in 1993, the Home Secretary Michael Howard proclaimed ‘Prison works…it makes many who are tempted to commit a crime think twice.’ Deterrence is the idea that through disciplinary sentences for major and minor offences the commitment of crime is

The Canadian Criminal Justice System (CJS) is a very intricate and complex system, yet it plays such a large role in our society. Although the CJS is a multifaceted system its three main components are: policing, the courts and corrections. In order to fully understand the CJS you must start at its first point of contact with the public, the police. Understanding how the police system functions is vital in grasping the complex topic of the CJS.

Furthermore, crime policies should turn away from incarceration as it is extremely expensive compared to rehabilitation and crime prevention programs. It is evident that more and more people are being incarcerated for committing crime each year. Therefore the government is having to pay a large amount of money for the offenders to be imprisoned. Crime is currently costing the Australian government around $32 billion per year. It is approximately $30,000 to incarcerate an offender, however it is only $5,000 to treat an offender (Drug Policy Alliance, 2005). If this solution gets taken into place, it will negatively impact police officers as there will be loss of jobs as their job is to imprison perpetrators. Another group of stakeholders that will be negatively impacted are the victims of crime. As it is likely that only some offenders will be incarcerated, the victims of crime will possibly be unpleased or stressed. However they must