Social Offences

New concepts of justice: As the social values change, so does our views of the concept of justice. Sentencing laws are

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

The concept of ‘crime’ is something that depends on time, place, and other influences. For this reason, researchers have been trying to get criminologists to rethink their definitions of ‘crime’ and consider the idea of ‘social harm’ which could help better explain the causes of human suffering and the definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ and broaden the application of criminal justice. What this rethinking can do for criminologists broadly is give them a broader picture of human psychology as well as the range of harms that individuals, communities, or whole societies experience. In this context this can include crime in the sense of activities of individuals as well as government and institutions.

Therefore, the aim of social harms perspective is to move beyond the legal and political definition of criminal behaviour, and acknowledge a wide range of actions and behaviours, that may be legal or not, but are profoundly more damaging to society. So, it is an analytical tool that is used to criticise the traditional idea of crime. However, the social harms perspective isn’t without faults, it’s a very subjective concept as not everyone’s perception of harm is the same.

However, he then distinguishes between just and unjust laws, insisting that an individual has both a right and a responsibility to break unjust laws. He defines just laws as those that uphold human dignity, and unjust laws as those that “degrade human personality.” Unjust laws, he argues, hurt not only the oppressed, but also the oppressors, since they are given a false sense of superiority.

As well as defining individuals as ‘social failures’ directing the blame away from the system. And thirdly defining criminals as ‘animals’ and ‘sick’ for example, justifying putting them in prison. Keeping these individuals out of the public eye allows us to forget why the crime occurred needed to help us solve the problems.

The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.

The recently passed ‘Sentencing Amendment (Coward’s Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters)’ arose within a highly politicized context and has led to controversy. The amendment was introduced in response to a perceived increase need to legislate on deaths caused by king hit punches or “coward’s punch”. It amends both the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), by defining a punch to head or neck as dangerous act, introducing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for manslaughter by one punch, and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter by gross violence to 10 years . However, there is likely little need for this legislation, as pre-existing law was already capable of dealing with the offence, and the implementation of this legislation will likely fail to effectively achieve its purpose. Moreover, the introduction, or increase, of a mandatory sentence will be unlikely to effectively deter individuals, and will remove the courts discretion regarding sentencing. In this essay I will argue that the legislation is unneeded to prosecute those who king hit others, and that it will likely fail to have its intended effect.

Explain how the notion of social harm is connected with ideas of social justice. Support your answer with evidence from two study weeks in Block 2, including at least one chapter from Book 1. This essay aims to explain social harm and its connections to social justice. The concept of social harm is difficult to define, Social harm occurs when problems not only affect an individual but for cause harm to society as a whole.

In our world, today, it happens on occasion that we, like Hale, put too much justice on the fairness that our court system is said to have. It has happened that someone was convicted of a crime that the person did not commit or a person, who committed a crime receives too strict, or more commonly the case, a

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated the social construction of the lawful and unlawful homicide by using the actions of the police officers in two different cases. In the Mark Duggan case, the lawfulness of the homicide was demonstrated by police officer complying with the theoretical outlooks of Beccaria and Durkheim (Williams, 2012). Protecting the people and their cultural biases, applying the punishment that straightens the social bonds as well as following laws and legislations despite of unwanted reaction in from of riots portray Mark Duggan’s killing as a lawful homicide (IPCC (a), 2015). However, if laws and legislations were not followed and actions were not aimed to protect people which led to a break in social bonds the reasonable

Crime is a social construction, and behaviour defined as criminal varies across time and place. Crime is an act that violate moral behaviour, but why is that not all behaviours that violate moral behaviour are labelled as crime? This is because crime is defined differently across different societies and different times. Neutralisation and drift theory helps us to explain why people abuse children by showing us how perpetrators rationalise their guilt for these actions before they physically, sexually, emotionally abuse or neglect children. They do this by blaming their actions on other people, higher forces or believing their acts are harmless. In this essay I will begin by talking about crime as a social construction then touch on child abuse in New Zealand followed by a discussion of how my social contract theory helps us to explain this crime.

Critically consider the way in which a focus on social harm can help us to explore the complexities of ‘crime’.

“It’s a general problem not specific to the law of the United Kingdom a criminal justice system characterized by an emphasis on crime control rather than due process will inevitably produce miscarriage of justice.”