Wrongdoing Vs Criminal Case Analysis

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

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.

I feel that this case was somewhat representative of what was discussed in the textbook. The forensics aspects of this case were generally different from the impression of forensics I received from reading the textbook. Despite this fact, I feel that the investigative techniques of this case were similar to what was discussed in the textbook, as well as what has been discussed during lecture.

As for the specific deterrence, it aims to deter the offender so as not to return to the commission of the offense again, the punishment and pain and their material and moral harm will prevent the offender

There are five distinct philosophies to the punishment of criminal offenders. The deterrence model is based on the belief that punishment or threat of punishment will prevent citizens, offenders or non-offenders, from committing or recommitting crimes (Fagin, 2016), 2016). A real-life example of the deterrence model would be corporal punishment. Because the children who witnessed the punishment would not want to commit the act, and the child receiving the punishment would not want to recommit their crime, it was believed to be an effective strategy in forming school children’s behavior (Fagin, 2016). The belief that criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and it would never be safe to release them back into the community falls under the incapacitation philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016). The most common type of incapacitation is imprisonment. When offenders are imprisoned, they are unable to commit new crimes, and will no longer pose a threat to their communities. Rehabilitation on the other hand, is the belief that criminals can be cured of their criminality, and can be released back into the community (Fagin, 2016). Counseling, educational programs, and work skill programs are all different real-world examples of the rehabilitation model (Fagin, 2016). The aim of these programs is to help offenders get better and become a productive member of society. The idea of punishing criminals because they deserve to be punished fits into the retribution philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016), 194). An example of this philosophy today would be

Each state prosecutes crimes committed against the state or society as a whole. Each state court must adhere to guidelines set forth by the federal government. Crimes against a state are held to a higher standard and must prove a party is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas crimes against an individual are civil cases, generally do not result in jail time and have a lower burden of proof.

The U.S. corrections system, a subdivision of the criminal justice system, continues to undergo change. From its beginnings as laws written in stone, the corrections system has sought to punish offenders. The origin of the corrections system dates back several thousand years and has witnessed various perspectives and goals. The best method of administering punishment to these prisoners has remained an issue of dispute for many years. Events through history, such

Rehabilitation assumes criminal behavior can be improved with non-punitive methods. Rehabilitation, although non-punitive, usually occurs along side punishment. For instance an incarcerated person may be given many rehabilitative options. Mental health programming, substance abuse counseling and even education programming exist in modern day correctional facilities. A judge may sentence someone to attend rehabilitative programming as a part of probation or it may be included as a stipulation in a plea agreement. At the core of rehabilitation is the thought that a criminal is flawed, often through no fault of their own. Poverty, mental health issues, or childhood trauma may all contribute to a criminal life and rehabilitation attempts to aid in a sort of recovery. If a person is cured of their issues, perhaps they will not recidivate.

The goal of general deterrence is a punishment that sets an example for other would-be criminals. Punishment must be tough enough to dissuade others from committing similar crimes. Incapacitation places offenders behind bars and removes the opportunity for continued criminal activity. Specific deterrence seeks to impose consequences that outweigh the profits if criminal activity. The goal of retribution is that the seriousness of the punishment is equal to the seriousness of the crime. This is referred to as just desert. Rehabilitation focuses on treatment programs and helping individuals with underlying problems that may have motivated them to commit crime. It assumes once the underlying issues are resolved the individuals will no longer be

Retribution: an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". Restitution: applied with the belief that offenders should repay their victim's loss in money or services. Rehabilitation: used more commonly used for juveniles. Incapacitation: is for those who repeated crimes under what are known as habitual offender acts. When a defendant commits a federal crime he/she placed in a federal prison and when the defendant is only incarcerated for only a year he/she goes into a state jail.

A variety of programs attempt to achieve the crime control goals established by general strain theory, but none are explicitly drawn from general strain theory. Restorative justice programs are an example of this. These restorative programs aim to impose less severe sanctions on offenders to reduce the risk of offenders viewing their punishment as unjust. This is accomplished by making offenders aware of the harm they caused and allow offenders to have a say in the sanction they are subjected to. The offenders also have a voice in mediating with the community and victim of their crime, which in turn helps teach them to cope with strains through legitimate, non-criminal means (Agnew, 2006).

Although each state carries its own definition and grounds of charges for each crime committed, but it doesn’t imply that the crime will go unpunished.

Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

Deterrence is a further purpose that needs to be highlighted. The aim of punishment is also to warn people from crime committing under the fear of being punished and it might be reached through the well-developed criminal justice system, one of the main aim of which is to ensure that every wrongdoer will be punished for the criminal acts. There are two kinds of deterrence. They are general and specific deterrence. Ferris defines specific deterrence as deterrence which attempts to persuade the individual before the court not to commit further offences, while general deterrence is defined as the process of persuading others who might be inclined to offend not to do so. Deterrence has its own pros and cons as well. One of the main deterrence benefits is that it may reduce crime rate significantly and sharply. For instance, there is a three strikes policy in most states of USA, which means that if an individual has already been in jail two times and if this person commits a third crime, she would be automatically sentenced for 25 years regardless of crime seriousness. On the other hand, the main drawback is that criminals usually think that they will not be caught, so they continue committing crimes.