Late 19th Century Law and Order Essay

It was suspected during the time period that overcrowding was the cause of the increased crime rate. People saw that the population growth—must like the popularity of gin—coincided with the rise crime. As London became an industrial city it needed a more unskilled workers to power its “textile, iron, metal goods, and pottery production” factories (“Crime and Punishment” par 2). This caused unskilled workers from “small rural towns” and “villages” into the city in hopes of finding work ("Crime and Punishment," par 1). This may seem like a good idea, but unfortunately the population of the city rose quicker than expected and thus hadn’t had an adequate amount of time to adjust to the booming population growth—over 400 percent in just 50 years ("Crime and Punishment," par 1).

Desperately for finding a solution to pay off the debt of the war, the British government signed the Townshend duties of 1767, formulated by Charles Townshend, chancellor of the Exchequer. The Townshend duties were new taxes for the American colonies pay on imported products: glass, paper, lead, and tea. Charles Townshend persuaded the British authorities signed the import items with the intention of not only pay the war’s bills, but also increase the British revenue and take back the Parliament’s authority over the American colonies.

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

Crime and punishment wasn't as easy in the 1800s as it is now. This research paper will inform you about the crime and punishment in the 1800s.

Nearing the end of the Civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century the United States went through an economic revolution. During this time there was abundant natural resources, a growing supply of labor, and expanding market for manufactured goods. Because of all abundances the federal government encouraged the expansion of the railroads. This would benefit the United States economically. The Railroads were so important because it made the “second industrial revolution” possible. In 1913 the United States was producing a major amount of the world’s output. Which is more than Great Britain, France, and germany combined.

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

The Poor Law act 1601 was introduced and classified the poor into three groups, setting policies for each, the impotent poor, able bodied poor and persistent idler. It viewed poverty as the fault of the person, not their situation. Following industrialisation and a decrease in agricultural jobs, workers moved to factories working for low pay and in appalling conditions, but those needing employment outweighed the availability of such.

Classical Criminology The classical school of criminology was around in the eighteenth century. It came abount in a time when the previous dominent spiritual look at defining crime and criminal behaviour was being challenged by a newer naturalistic approach of the social contract theorists. The classical school was the established ideas of monarchs, fedual lords and the fathers of the church.

Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.

Before the French Revolution, there were three estates, or classes: the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. The nobility and the clergy had many more privileges than the third estate and that is what caused the French Revolution. The Third estate was composed of the peasants, the workers and the bourgeoisie; unlike the other segments of the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie was able to communicate its grievances to the public during the period after the French Revolution: 1789-1799.

When it comes to the United States, (U.S), the majority of the American people love their seconded amendment rights. As stated in the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, the second amendment of the United States Constitution, for the most part, protects the U.S. citizens rights to “keep and bear arms” (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). That being said, each state in the U.S. will vary in their firearms laws. For instance, some states make it easier for their residence to purchase or use a firearm; other states may have stricter laws that require a more scrutinized screening process. To be more specific, most states vary in elements, such as the exceptions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the waiting period on purchasing firearms; if someone needs a license to own or purchase a gun; if registration is required; and if a record of the firearm sales is sent to the local police. Other factors that will differ from state to state would include, if some firearms are permitted or not allowed to be sold or owned by a state, the concealed carry laws, hunter protection laws; range protection laws, and finally, not all states have firearm injury lawsuit preemption.

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.

The law of conspiracy is considerably more complex and uncertain than it need be because the statutory reform of the area largely contained in Part I of the criminal law Act 1977 was only partial. As a result, there are now two types of conspiracy – statutory conspiracies governed by the 1977 Act, and an important but limited range of common law conspiracies, which were expressly retained by the act, still governed by the old common law rules, (Tomlins & King, 1992). The most recent of the conspiracies is the conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the conspiracy to outrage public decency; statutory conspiracy entails any agreement to commit a crime

The idea of human dignity has been remarked and articulated in a number of the jurisprudence works of the mid-twentieth American legal philosopher, Lon L. Fuller. The Morality of Law, for instance, provides a valuable snapshot of Fuller’s preliminary sense of what his idea on human dignity might entail. In the core of his argument of legal morality, Fuller proposes that any neglect of eight principles of legality, which constitutes the internal morality of law, is not just only render the rational ground to obey the law and destroy the trusteeship between lawgiver and subject, but it further condemns and humiliates the dignity of person or human being as a free and responsible agent, self-determining center of action, and that they possess inherent dignity. In other important text, Fuller explicitly announces that the value of human dignity, over other extra-legal values, that must embodied within the structure of legal order. After he offers a long discussion of human capacity of action and communication under the forms of order, he writes: “ there is, therefore, in an ordered system of law, formulated and administered conscientiously, a certain built-in respect for human dignity, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that this respect will tend to carry over into the substantive ends of law.” Thirdly, in his draft essay Means and Ends, which can be considered both as an introductory of Fuller’s eunmoics theory of social order and Fuller’s reflection on the