The Law In Breach And The Restoration Of Order

Crime have existed over many centuries, different eras affect the flow of crime and within those eras. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. The act of crime cannot be eliminated, as different individuals have different perspectives of crime and for theses reasons, have different methods of advocating and eliminating crime. This essay will firstly explore the views of Classical Theory, by looking at Cesane Beccaria, the father of Classical theory and Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarian and explore how there influences are incorporated into laws and regulations, around the world. Secondly, Positivism theory explores the biological, psychological and environment

Criminology is a field that has been researched prolong. Most of the information explaining crime and delinquency is based on facts about crime (Vold, Bernard, & Daly 2002, p.1). The aim of this paper is to describe the theories of crime and punishment according to the positivists Emile Durkheim and Cesare Lombroso, and the classical criminologist Marcese de Beccaria. The theories were developed as a response to the industrialisation and the modernisation of the societies in the 18th and 19th centuries and were aiming to create a rational society and re-establish social solidarity (Vold et al 2002, p.101). The criminological perspectives of crime and punishment will be discussed in a form of dialogue between the three theorists exploring

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

Ever since the beginning of time man has committed crimes. Crimes were described as acts which go against the social and moral norms of society and people. People have learned to deal with these crimes in many different ways. One of the most used forms of dealing with crime is punishing those who commit crimes. There are numerous ways in which people have punished those who commit crimes throughout history from making the criminal pay fines to banishing them from the community. However, in modern times, there are fewer acceptable forms of punishment that are used. For very unserious crimes, governments may simply make a criminal pay a small fine or do service for the community in some way. Offenders who

Cesare Beccaria is the “Father of Classical Criminology” and justified punishment on the principle of utility. Beccaria focused on reforming the Criminal Justice System and believed that punishment should be for the better good for society, as well as the individual, and deter others from committing crime and prevent criminals from recommitting crime. He believes effective punishment must certain, swift, and severe to get the desired effect on society and the offender (Robert, Cullen, and Ball 2015). He is also the author of his book Of Crime and Punishment, which discussed his philosophy on the purposes

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

Criminology and the criminal justice system have framed a “taken-for-granted, common-sense” understanding of ‘crime’ and the ‘criminal’ (Tierney, 2010). ‘Crime’ is commonly understood as a violation of the criminal law; originating from religion and the sin of God and then moving towards Classicalism. Classicalism rests on the assumption of free will and recognises rational choice of the individual. It influences much of our system of justice today; especially aspects of due process. It argues that criminality is therefore part of nature; and order is maintained through law and punishments. We can see this through Beccaria’s approach of certainty, celerity and severity (Beccaria, cited in Newburn, 2013, pp116). Positivism, associated with theorists such as Lombroso, offered more of a scientific approach in identifying the causes of crime and could recognise impaired ability such as mental illness. It argues that ‘crime’ is

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

In this essay, I am going to discuss what some of the ideas are when it comes thinking as to why deterrence does not work, which could be that the harsher the crime, the harsher the punishment for many of the crimes committed. It could mean that it does not work because the offender maybe becomes aware of the punishment. However, it could be because of the notion of impulsivity which connected and is almost everywhere within a society where there has been a connection to the idea of rational choices, which has a role when it comes to the way people have been thinking about committing the crime of any shape or form. However, there have been many reasons why it doesn’t work, because the offenders come from many different walks of life within a society. Therefore, the kind of crimes that have been done, which can then have associated with rational choices, which have people are connected to in society.

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.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze what crime and punishment was like during the middle ages and early modern world. In the middle ages, which started from the 5th century all the way through to the 15th century, and through early modern time which was between 15th century to around the late 18th century, crime and punishment started to differ from what it did in the past. In the preceding years crime and punishment would be formed around cultural beliefs or by what a ruler thought was acceptable and also revolved around Roman Churches which was now being replaced by Germanic people. Now it has changed in to more of a law and church, concept and in addition to that the renewal of the penitentiary system.

When it comes to the issue of crime prevention, Beccaria did not believe that the best way to reduce crime was to increase laws or increase the severity of punishment, since doing so would merely create new crimes and “embolden men to commit the very wrongs it is supposed to prevent” (Becarria [1764] 1963).

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) is probably most well known as the founding father of the school of classical criminology. He protested against the current legal system and pushed for those in power to see that individuals are rational beings and deserve rational repercussions. In his most popular work; Essay on Crimes and Punishments, he protested against the cruel punishments and suggested that they must only be equal to that of the crime itself and revolutionised the criminal justice system with his ideals on how to make the most effective punishment, without maximum damage of the individual. He believed that “Punishment is only justified to the extent that the offender has infringed the rights of others or injured the public good.” (Newburn, 2013) Although Beccaria viewed crime as an act of free-will and rational choice he did see that some individuals were pre-rational (meaning they were unable to be rational), for example children and also that there are sub-rational people (individuals with some rationality but not a full rational mind), this for example can be people with mental afflictions or diseases. Moreover he did not see that there can be a cause for crime which is due to situational problems, i.e. a big change in a person’s life which can cause them to commit crime, like death, financial problems, and birth of a child, family altercations and much more. Although Beccaria was not always right with his beliefs he was the

It is better to try and prevent crimes than it is to punish them, this is achieved by good legislation which guides men to their greatest, or least unhappiness possible (Beccaria, 1767). As mentioned previously, Beccaria’s utilitarian ideology has shaped the justice system in western societies for many decades. Therefore, Beccaria can be described as a very influential thinker. Without his contribution we could still have a system of capital punishment, and that is a worrying thought. However, we now seem fixed with utilitarian justice. It may be argued that it is now time to move towards restorative justice. There are also those such as Tullock (1974), who argue for a return to harsher sentencing. Some states in the US still consider the death penalty to be a legitimate punishment. So it can be said that Beccaria is undoubtedly a key thinker in criminology, but as with all key thinkers he is not without his critics.

Crime is a wrong against society proclaimed by law and, if committed under certain circumstances, and punishable by society. The violation of society formally enacted criminal law. Becker (1963) has suggested that we call the people who involved in these activities as a ‘moral entrepreneurs’. Based on this crime case study, we can identify and related the case with the Individualistic theories. According to Cesare Lombroso (1870) theories , he state that there are individuals who classified as a born as criminals or "born criminal" based on their behaviour and background.