Why Is Stealing Important

Everyday it seems an individual is wrongly accused of a crime. In the book Monster for example, 2 young men are accused of a robbery and murder. The book follows one of the young men Steve Harmon, he’s been wrongly accused of being the lookout. Steve wasn’t the lookout nor was he responsible for Mr. Nesbitt because none of the witnesses recognized him, his teacher supported his honesty and he wasn’t in the store when Mr. Nesbitt got shot.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

This flaw affects an individual’s life drastically because it causes them to loose so many years of their life behind prison bars for a crime they did not commit. There are many reasons for why the Canadian Court system has the flaw of wrongful convictions such as: eyewitness misidentification, where the witness may claim to have seen something but their minds understand the situations wrongs, or like in Milgaard’s case, witnesses may give false eyewitness identification, just like John did, stating he had seen Milgaard stab the nurse. Error in forensic science is another reason for wrongful convictions. Just like in Truscott’s case, during the time, there was not enough science knowledge to investigate Lynne Harper’s body, and the found information was false evidence. False testimony is a major factor in wrongful convictions because when someone gives false testimonies, they make the case even more difficult for the wrongly accused person. In Milgaard's case, his friends who gave false testimony, switching up the story of what had actually happened the night of the murder, was a major reason why Milgaard had to serve sentence for a crime he did not commit. Tunnel vision was a major factor in Truscott’s case that caused him to be sentenced. The police only focused on him as a suspect and did not regard anything else or try to investigate upon anything

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

False confessions have been a leading factor in destroying the lives of many innocent people. Since the advances of technology, victims of false confessions have been exonerated from the charges previously placed on them while others are still fighting for innocence or died a criminal. One technological advance that has exonerated many individuals is DNA testing. According to Randy James, DNA testing was discovered in 1985 and was first used in court to convict Tommie Lee Andrews (Time, 2009). Today many Americans are convicted because of false confessions that have not yet been overturned with new evidence (Kassin, 2014). Although DNA testing has led to freedom for many innocent Americans, there are still many innocent people who are locked

In life, the line that separates victims from perpetrators is as clear as a window pane, but in some situations that window can crack, causing damage and danger. A victim is someone who has been harmed, or worse, due to a crime or accident. A perpetrator is a person who has committed a crime, either accidently or purposely. Three stories that capture this blurred line are Shattered, an Australian Story episode on ABC’s website, The Story of Tom Brennan, a story written by Australian author J.C.Burke, and In My Little Town, another Australian Story episode. They all share the common theme of having a blurred line between victim and perpetrator.

different gangs, The Greasers and The Socs, fight all the time in order to see who is tougher, but

Sergeant #6020 has enticed us with his persuasive personality and his manipulative mind set. Engulfed in a world of lies, the reality of a true crime investigation takes place in a small town of Saskatchewan. Sgt. John Wilson’s life begins unraveling right in front of your eyes. Lois Simmie captures a tragic story of love, lies, and the ultimate betrayal.

Crime is an unfortunate part of many people’s lives - both for the victim of the crime and also the suspect. There are many theories as to why crimes happen, who commits the crimes, and why crimes happen to certain people. Not all crimes can be solved, or questions answered but these theories give a peek into the thinking or background behind some crimes that are committed.

Complicity, better known as accomplice liability, is the act of assisting or encouraging another to commit a crime. Often times this term is correlated with the act of aiding or abetting which can be interpreted easily. Although an accomplice did not directly act within the crime, their actions that positively affected the crime can lead to their conviction as an accomplice. This can be a person who stood by and watched a crime happen, a person who helped plan out the process of a crime, or even a person who ignorantly aided one another with a crime. In two different cases studied, Pace vs. State of Indiana and Settles vs U.S, the appellants on trial are fighting against their involvement in their separate crimes. For Pace, his involvement with a robbery taken place within his vehicle that he failed to stop rules him liable as an accomplice. With his driving during the robbery and assisting the criminals escape from the victim, a trial could be formed to convict him as an accomplice. In the Settles case, a man, Whitley, is on trial for being an accomplice to a kidnapping and sexual assault committed by Settles. Without knowledge if Whitley had any involvement in the planning process of the crime, the trial stands to convict Whitley for standing watch out and allowing a crime to occur. A testimony by the victim claiming that Whitley was seen running away from the scene of the crime with Settles also ads to the evidence being used to convict him as an accomplice.

but then it turns out they are killing someone. In the Possibility of Evil there is a women who is highly respected in a certain small town. It turns out that she is actually sending gossip letters behind peoples back.

evidence but by the wrath of a vengeful person causing a waste of time and resources inside of a

What does it mean to own something? An individual may own something that has more significance to the item than meets the eye. This subject has encouraged prominent thinkers to learn more about the idea. This has entered a very fascinating way of thinking that has even perplexed the astounding minds of Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. This is why owning something has more significance than may be thought, tangible goods are detrimental to a person's character, ownership of tangible goods helps to develop moral character, and ownership extends beyond objects to include intangible things as well.

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

What makes a criminal a criminal? Can anyone become a criminal? Answering and understanding these questions is the core work of criminologists as most criminologists attempt to make sense of why people do certain things (Garland, Sparks 2000). This essay will consider the notion that any person could become a criminal and in so doing consider the initial question. This essay will outline a range of theories that attempt to describe human behavior in relation to criminal behavior given the complexities of behaviour. Several theories will be considered as no single theory of behavior can account fully for the complexities and range in criminal behaviour. The theories range from social-control, to classical, to biological, to personality