Criminal Law Reduce Non Compliance

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.

It allows us to examine what makes crime acceptable and desirable in the minds of potential criminals, and it gives us the tools necessary to use a proactive rather than reactive approach to crime control. To look at crime from a psychological point of view is nothing new. However, use of this technique may lead to better methods of deterrence. To begin, we must understand what the concepts are that have shaped the average person’s mind. In general the average person is faced with the concepts of determinism, free will, and social identity as they mature into adulthood.

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

Firstly, when it comes to the association that many of the would-be offenders that are committing the crimes may have many kinds of thought of how they are offending, which could be illegal or legal. It could be why they have offended or are thinking about offending. Whereas there could be many hindrances that are connected, which have been associated with the choices many people are making in term of their mental capacity and the sociological aspects have also then been connected to the way they have committed the crimes such as burglary or petty crimes. It also could be

Introduction: Throughout history there have always been many different theories of crime and why people commit crimes. In the late 1930s a new theory rose to the forefront; this theory was called the anomie theory. Anomie means a lack of ethical standards. The anomie theory was proposed by Roberton Merton. It stated that society, as a whole, generally shares the same goals relating to having success in life; whether that is having a family, wealth, power, or just happiness. Society generally agrees that these are things that are to be sought after. Furthermore, Merton proposed that society, as a whole, also has a list of generally accepted ways to achieve such goals (Merton, 1938). Criminal activity, such as robbery, murder, and corruption, are among the things that are not accepted by society as appropriate means to achieve these goals. Merton’s anomie theory was built upon in 1992 by Robert Agnew who developed the general strain theory. General strain theory argues that when members of society are unable to achieve the general goals that society has set forth, they will, in order to avoid further rejection, further alienate themselves from society. Agnew also argued that if these individuals feel as if their shortcomings were a result of their environment failing them they will likely develop very negative feelings towards society, causing them to

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

Furthermore can formal social control institutions such as the criminal justice system and the government provide the best aspect of producing conformity and law abiding behaviour? Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory is concerned with what effect formal institutions have on conformity in individuals and in particular, how law abiding behaviour is produced due to these institutions (Walklate, 2005). However Wilson (2007) argues that formal methods of social control such as the criminal justice system are merely there to control and segregate delinquents and offenders who have not had adequate socialisation, which is where social mores are learnt and when conformity is produced, and that an alternative form of social control such as restorative

Mental health and the criminal justice system have long been intertwined. Analyzing and understanding the links between these two subjects demands for a person to go in to depth in the fields of criminology, sociology, psychology, and psychiatry, because there are many points of view on whether or not a person’s criminal behavior is due to their mental health. Some believe that an unstable mental state of mind can highly influence a person’s decision of committing criminal actions. Others believe that mental health and crime are not related and that linking them together is a form of discrimination because it insinuates that those in our society that suffer from poor mental health are most likely to become a criminal due to their

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries, and is defined as any offense harmful against the public. However, the true nature of crime is more complex as there are many different motives and causes behind a criminal act, which cannot be contributed to a single factor (Barlow & Decker, 2010). Within the field of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to explain why some individuals commit crime, while others abstain from it. Some theories attribute crime to the specific environment; they believe that an individual commits crime when certain ecological conditions are met (Felson, 2001). Others argue that crime is caused by the individual themselves; that criminals are the result of unrestrained thoughts and low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This paper will analyze aspects of a real world scenario using both routine activity theory and low self-control theory, for the purpose of better understanding and evaluating certain criminal behavior.

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

Talking about making our communities safer, judges have increasing sentences to the offenders and over 90 per cent of offenders who fail to comply are now returned to court for tougher punishment. Re-offending rates are down. There has been a major reduction in the number of re-offences committed by both adults and juveniles a 22.9 per cent fall for adults and an 18.7 per cent fall for juvenile. Public confidence in the criminal justice system has risen in recent years, although corrections still need to do more to demonstrate to communities that the system is on their side in delivering justice. Personally, there is still too wide a gap between the reality about crime and the public’s perception.

What are the deciding factors whether a person will commit a crime? Criminology Today An Integrative Introduction, written by Frank Schmalleger builds on a social policy theme by

Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.

Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay