The And Its Effects On Society And The Corporate Environment

First to be covered are the five goals of contemporary criminal sentencing. These goals came from the modern thinking that “emphasized the need to limit offenders’ potential for future harm by separating them from society” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 61). They were developed to better an offender and help them to become a better citizen. These five goals are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration (Schmalleger, 2014). Retribution is one of the oldest of the five goals and “is a call for punishment based on a perceived need for vengeance” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 261). This is the basic principal in punishing anyone who has that has done wrong. Parents use this method when grounding a child who has broken curfew and the criminal justice system uses it when handing down a sentence to a person convicted of a crime.

Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to

All societies have rules and regulations as well as penalties for those who violate them. There are numerous theories about the philosophy behind these laws and punishments, and the reasons we implement them. A short analysis of two of these perspectives can shed light on the differences between the various ideas while illustrating that, in reality, each theory carries some validity.

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

　　Punishment is a necessary evil, it is required to deter criminals from committing crimes and to serve as an example to other potential criminals

From this one statistic, it is evident that the punishment business is an endeavor that companies can immensely profit from. Due to its lucrative nature and small input costs, it can be easy for a corporation to oversee the ethical issues involved with

The Mercantile Theory deliberately opposes the idea of strict liability as it wishes for excuses to be welcomed in the law system to prevent excessive or wrongful punishment. By allowing excuses with The Mercantile Theory, we are allowed freedom in Hart’s view. Hart argues that if a person can enter a considerably dangerous industry, without fear that if something should happen that is out of their control they will be punished, liberty and freedom of choice is maximized. If a person knows that he can get into trouble, even with a viable excuse, he will be much less willing to enter into necessary industries so that he might avoid legal trouble. This, by Hart, is viewed as a restriction of freedom from a non-mercantile system. To punish those with excuses would restrict their freedom.

It has been discovered from multiple sources that ever since ancient times, punishment was a necessary concept in order to prevent crime or wrongdoings. Ancient laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law (or Law given to Moses atop Mt. Sinai) use different methods to attempt to prevent or minimize the unavoidable occurrence of crime. Hammurabi’s Code using retribution (e.g. an eye for an eye), and the Mosaic Law using fear of God’s judgement. Neither of these have proven to be very effective. Since the dawn of human law, new laws have emerged. others have been forgotten, and many have been refined. Logically, it would be impossible to rid society of all actions that harm another person, which means the controllers of our societies (corrupt governments backed by mega-corporations) must concoct a way to keep society from descending into chaos, while still retaining their bloated wallets. The first prisons came about almost immediately after the first sets of laws. In Ancient Greece, “Imprisonment as a penalty was used initially for those who could not afford to pay their fines. Eventually, since impoverished Athenians could not pay their fines, leading to indefinite periods of imprisonment, time limits were set instead” (Allen). For some odd reason, society has still not evolved from using the Machiavellian method of instilling fear in order to prevent rebellious acts. Our supposedly ‘wise and responsible leaders’ actually believe that by using isolation and

Now let us move on to retribution, the process to repay for something that has been fault by an individual “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Newton third law of motion, it has well known properties that this is relative to reality of society as well. If social harm has taken place, there must be an equal substantive reaction. I agree greatly, but to what extent do we keep penalizing society’s

A corporation is an artificial person established by the law. It nurses the same rights as humans contrariwise; they are not equally responsible for their actions. A corporation cannot face the same charges a human would: if illegal actions took place. Bakan illustrates the traits of a corporation to closely resemble the traits of a psychopathic individual human being. These traits are, but not limited to: “1) unconcern for others, 2) incapable of maintaining relationships, 3) disregard for others safety/health, 4) repeated lying, 5) incapable of experiencing guilt, and 6) failure to conform to social norms.” Therefore, executive’s means for earning high returns for shareholders can be seen as a trait of a psychopath. Yet, the corporation’s attributes are not based on the qualities of the executives outside of their careers. As Bakan would say, “the people who run corporations are, for the most part, good people, moral people.”

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

The aim of this paper is to present a more comprehensive understanding of Charles R. Tittle’s control balance theory. Introduced are the assumptions about human nature and criminal behavior, hypotheses, methods for testing, empirical support, limitations, and implications. This research presents the benefits of identifying similar concepts in theories and merging them to create a broader theory. Moreover, the focus of this theory is on the claim that Tittle developed a theory that can explain both conventional criminal behavior as well as elite crime. Though more research is needed, the goal of this research is to show the positive impacts of integrating theories to create a utopian general theory. Observations, conclusions, and recommendations are described in the conclusions.

Scholars have described organisational behaviour as a study that is concerned with the behaviour of the personnel within organisations. The subject of organisational behaviour is centrally concerned with the questions of how to develop and maintain behaviour that conforms to expectations and allows the realisation of the organisations goals. Furthermore Vardi and Wiener describes organisational misbehaviour as any intentional action by a member or groups of members of an organisation that defines and violates shared organisational norms and expectations, and the core societal values, mores and standards of proper conduct. Misbehaviour is commonly associated with the deliberate errant actions of the organisation’s employees. However in recent works, which indicated that organisational behaviour theorists are starting to view misbehaviour differently, and (Galperin, 2003; vardi and weitz 2004; kindwell and martin