Essay on Criminology

A recent policy was implemented by Jackson Tennessee’s Police Department, and Family Service’s dealing with the problem of child endangerment. Any household that has any documented offense of domestic violence, child abuse, or drug or alcohol related offense committed by the parents, guardian, grandparent, or babysitter, the child/children will be placed in the care of the state or foster care services, until it is proven that the offender has undergone any or all of the following, and has been offense free for a period of no less than six-months. The offender can choose

"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.

The purposes of punishment in NSW have been a topic of great debate amongst contemporary society. At the heart of these discussions is two core theories for justifying punishment: the utilitarian theory, which situates itself around the idea that punishment is justified because it has a material benefit in preventing further crime, and the retributive theory, which simply says that punishment is a justified moral response to a crime. These two theories, in conjunction with the purposes of punishment outlined in S 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, will be analysed and discussed throughout this report. However, it is clear from the outset that there are many tensions that are inherent in the business of punishment.

It created the platform for one to utilize their state of mind and free will to come up with decisions. It is arguable that present society, majority of offenders receives punishments that fit their crime. Controversially, another influence is that the some current judicial system hardly considers the social factors that lead to deviance and criminal acts despite factors like drug abuse and poverty that greatly affect one’s behavior. Indeed, many debates and responses to crime such as conservatism are underpinned by the concept of rational offender both in UK and USA for the past couple of years. This classical theory still has applications to date, for example the justice system of USA is entirely based on its policies and the notion of having same punishments for same kind of criminal acts is traced to the classical theory.

There are many current criminal justice policies and laws that demonstrate how the policy has been informed by the theories that have been covered this semester. Many connections are not explicit but offer great detail in offering information based on the given topics. The current criminal justice policy that I’ve chosen was the sentencing policy. The sentencing policy was put together to reach every type of case that could possibly be seen in the criminal justice system. Here we will further discuss the sentencing policy, a case that I found to be a great example to understand the sentencing policy and how it can be overused, then we will move into how this policy have been informed by the rational choice theory, next we will cover its underlying assumptions and some of the ways it deviate, lastly we will discuss our alternative course of action which is the deterrence theory.

So that is Bentham’s Utilitarianism Theory all explained through three parts, the Motivation of pain and pleasure, the Principle of Utility and the Hedonistic

My initial thinking of the question of “what is the difference between criminology and criminal justice?” is well suited in my situation, and a question I started asking myself before the semester began. Presently I am taking Criminology and also Intro to Criminal Justice. So I was baffled to understand how they were not basically one and the same. I believe that criminology is what a detective uses, among their repertoire of many other talents, to get into the mind of the perpetrator, and what they use to build a profile of a crime and of those who commit those crimes. The actual study of Criminology is only really taught to law enforcement near the very top of the legal system hierarchy. This is not necessarily taught to the street patrol cop or the detention officer in the state penitentiary. The study of Criminal Justice came

Developing information suggests that a criminal justice system gains practical value by generating societal views of fair enforcement and judgement. Particularly, views of practical fairness resulting in views of the system 's legality, may promote systemic compliance with applicable law, support with legal institutions and actors, and respect to even negative outcomes. A separate information alludes that a criminal justice system derives realistic value by allocating criminal legal responsibility and punishment according to principles that trail general instincts of justice. Distinctively, views of applicable justice resulting in views of the system 's ethical credibility would seem to promote compliance, support, and respect. By contrast, a criminal justice system alleged to be procedurally unfair or basically unjust may incite resistance and agitation, and may lose its capacity to control powerful social and normative influence.

If we accept that punishment is justified in certain circumstances, then, ideally, it should only be incurred by individuals whose actions warrant punishment. I think, at least amongst civilised society, this opinion cannot be disputed. The difficult question is not whether punishment should be deserved, but when punishment should be deserved. The quotation above suggests that in order to be worthy of punishment, the defendant must have consciously chosen to have committed the wrong of which he or she stands accused. However, as the UK criminal justice system demonstrates, strict compliance with this principle is often impractical. This essay will investigate the legislation that seems to challenge the ‘conscious choice’ principle, before considering whether or not this legislation compromises the value of the criminal justice system.

Playing outside, coloring, and dressing up are common activities of a normal seven year old girl. When you are seven years of age, you are still a child of innocence barely starting school. But imagine being seven years old and having your purity, innocence, and childlike wonder taken away from you.

I have always held a deep interest in pursuing a career in Sociology and Criminology as it holds a huge impact on people's lives and the society that we live in, so studying Sociology at A-level has allowed me to view society in a more critical and objective way. Covering crime and deviance in Sociology has enhanced my fascination in topics including punishment and the causes of crime such as ethnicity, gender and class. Having only studied Sociology at A-Level, my evaluation skills and social awareness have significantly improved due to looking at real world issues and forming my own opinions. Sociology has allowed me to get a deep insight as to why people behave in certain ways, and also helped me to understand different beliefs and identities as well as my own, enabling me

In this paper I will defend both the proponents and principles of the utilitarian theory of punishment, namely addressing the utilitarian approach juxtaposed with the retributive. Before beginning to make claims in any direction, a brief and to-date synopsis of the utilitarian fundamentals regarding punishment will be necessary. From there, I will present the utilitarian theories of punishment as not only the most useful for a society, but also the best representation of criminal law being carried out justly. Following this assertion I will refute objections made by retributivists, and in doing so present a discovered common ground between the retributory criteria for just punishment and the utilitarian theories. This will not serve to say I believe in impure retributivism over the utilitarian theories, but rather will act as testament to the practicality of the utilitarian approach. Finally, I will propose the most ethical response to criminality is found from the utilitarian fundamentals of societal well-being, mentioning specifically the vindictive theories of punishment as meeting the utilitarian criteria. To the utilitarian, punishment is not an end in itself for the actions of a wrongdoer. Utilitarians and I believe punishment should serve as a larger means to an end that will benefit the future while righting the criminal actions of the past by employing deterrence, rehabilitation, and the disablement of the unjust human in the perpetual attempt to increase overall

Classicism is associated with the works of Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), the father of the classical school of criminology and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) (Walklate, 2007). Both reformers of the classical school were demanding for more effective, rational and fixed system of justice. Brown, Esbensen and Geis (2012) highlights that, as classicists intended to reform the system and administration of justice, one of the key concepts was Beccaria’s doctrine of Egalitarianism. This refers to equality before the law, where offenders must first be convicted by the court of law to be subjected to punishment (White and Haines, 2004). As all individuals are equal before the law, this led to the rejection of individualised punishment, in which to eliminate judicial discretion; there cannot be individualised punishments (Mantle, Fox and Dhami, 2005).

I believe there are various requirements ranging from educating the young by developing social skills at a very young age, guiding the youth in the downside to anti-social behaviour, drugs, unprotected sex and making them aware peer pressure does not mean you have to try something; they can ‘Just Say No’. This can be achieved by educational day visits to schools by the Police and local community teams.

As a function of this understanding, when universalized in civil society, legal authority in the Anglo-American tradition is grounded in the rule of law, rather than in those who happen to claim or administer legal authority, and as such (focusing here only on criminal justice, since it is the starkest aspect of law), is 1) required to presume a person's innocence until s/he is found guilty by a jury of peers, with the burden of proof resting resolutely with the accuser (i.e., the state); 2) is rigidly restricted to judging actions, rather than persons, and 3) must hold perpetrators of unlawful actions to the same penal standard, regardless of who they might be, or what position they might hold in society. (4) The moral purpose of punishment with respect to the criminal is retribution (the deed is expiated through execution of the punishment), while the moral purpose of punishment with respect to society is that it confirms our collective commitment to the rule of law — even while deterrence is seen as a primary objective (i.e., as an amoral "goal"). (5)