Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The purpose of criminal law in America
Case of rule of law
Strength and weakness of deterrence theory in crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The purpose of criminal law in America
Instead of a single principled response to diverse social behaviour, criminal law comprises of numeral diverse practices with a diversity of rationales. In condemning wrongs and vindicating rights, the criminal law debatably fulfils an extensive diversity of roles. One role that relishes a qualified priority is the role of supporting the rule of law which is obtained in the image of authority and prevailing legal rules which coerce the verdicts of authoritative officials (Grant, 2016). The pursuit of the rule of law thus entails creating authoritative legal sources capable of vindicating verdicts made by officials. Through attaching sanctions to a legal rule, criminal law guarantees that the reward for cooperation will not be an opportunistic …show more content…
Numerous state sentencing acts outline rehabilitation as a key purpose of sentencing. The Sentencing Act 1977 (TAS) articulates that the purpose of the act is to not only help prevent crime, but to encourage respect for the law by permitting courts to impose sentences designed for the rehabilitation of the offender (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2010, 1/10). ¬¬¬It is assumed that there is a handful of evidence that suggests without rehabilitation, incarceration may consequently amplify rates of reoffending. Studies have attested that some amount of rehabilitative treatment is more capable of minimising the risk reoffending compared to no treatment (Graham, 2012, 5-10). In association to this Hanson and Bussiere (1998) reported that offenders who did not undertake rehabilitative treatment prove to have higher rates of re-offending than those who underwent treatment. Thus, it is evident that rehabilitation plays a major role in protecting the community from offenders through its aim to prevent re-offending, further constituting as a standing disincentive to
This essay begins with the introduction of the Risk-Needs-Responsivitiy Model which was developed to assess offending and offer effective rehabilitation and treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). The R-N-R model “remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders” (Polashek, 2012, p.1) consisting of three principles which are associated with reductions in recidivism of up to 35% (Andrew & Bonta, 2010); risk, need and responsivity. Firstly, the risk principle predicts the offenders risk level of reoffending based on static and dynamic factors, and then matched to the degree of intervention needed. Secondly, the R-N-R targets individual’s criminogenic needs, in relation to dynamic factors. Lastly, the responsivity principle responds to specific responsivity e.g. individual needs and general responsivity; rehabilitation provided on evidence-based programming (Vitopoulous et al, 2012).
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
There has always been an opinion on the correct way to deal with criminals. This will be yet another, but by me. The ways of dealing with criminals is not easy, and there is technically not a definite way to do so. But in my opinion, among the many goals of corrections, the ways I can agree on are a combination of rehabilitation and deterrence. These two things are completely opposite of one another, but used at the appropriate times, to the appropriate inmates, it could work in a positive way.
...ystem and are seen as a credible sentencing option because of the restorative and rehabilitative effect it has on offenders by allowing them the opportunity to give something back to the community and providing them with education and work experience. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that rehabilitation is neither an effective or non-effective sanction. The use of probation as a stand-alone sanction has decreased over the years with probation now being combined with more severe sentences. When combined with rehabilitative programs probation reduced crime outcomes by 16.7%. The common perception of the general public is that increasing the severity of sentencing will reduce crime, however empirical evidence suggest that this is not the appropriate response. Public dissatisfaction with sentencing in Tasmania is often due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.
With the rehabilitative model, correction programs are able to emphasize the provision of treatment programs designed to reform the offender. This model was formed during the 1950s. Typically this model is used to reform an inmate’s perspective and bring emphasis on conforming to norms. Prisons became places of reform where inmates could be rehabilitated and prepared for a return to society. It wasn’t until numerous criminological reports finding no significant treatment effects for prison rehabilitation programs that the rethinking of this ideology changed, leading to the rehabilitative model
The Criminal Justice system was established to achieve justice. Incarceration and rehabilitation are two operations our government practices to achieve justice over criminal behavior. Incarceration is the punishment for infraction of the law and in result being confined in prison. It is more popular than rehabilitation because it associates with a desire for retribution. However, retribution is different than punishment. Rehabilitation, on the other hand is the act of restoring the destruction caused by a crime rather than simply punishing offenders. This may be the least popular out of the two and seen as “soft on crime” however it is the only way to heal ruptured communities and obtain justice instead of punishing and dispatching criminals
Rehabilitation is another objective of sentencing. Rehabilitation is different from incapacitation and deterrence in that it does not always involve getting put behind bars. An offender may receive a sentence of rehabilitation where they are released back into society to complete a community based sentence (Goff, 2014 p.296).
The justice system in America is a failure and should be immediately reformed to a more standardized system that encourages reform over punishment. This is clearly evidenced by the 76.6% of prisoners that are rearrested within five years of release, the inequality of sentencing based on race or socioeconomic class, and the widely varying prison terms, which in many cases do not fit the crimes committed.
...apabilities to deal with this which is not the case so much nowadays as Tony Marshall (1999) argues. There are criticisms over procedures, loss of rights such as an independent and impartial forum as well as the principle of proportionality in sentencing. There is also an unrealistic expectation that restorative justice can produce major changes in deviant behaviour, as there is not enough evidence to support this claim (Cunneen, 2007). Levrant et al (1999) on the other hand suggests that restorative justice still remains unproven in its’ effectiveness to stop reoffending and argues that its appeal lies in its apparent morality and humanistic sentiments rather than its empirical effectiveness. He continues to argue that it allows people to feel better within themselves through having the moral high ground rather than focusing on providing justice to the offender.
If while under the care of the correction system the offenders are treated with proper program that have been proven to be effective they can and should be allowed a second chance if they are truly rehabilitate. One of the main points of the correctional system is to retribution; retribution is the theory that mandates the balance of the scale of justice. Retribution ensures that offenders feel the pain for the crime they have caused, an attempt to get even “an eye for an eye”. Retribution is a theory that is utilitarian it seek to punish offenders for the purpose of reducing crime. Another theory is deterrence; deterrence is a form of punishment that is used as threat in order to discourage people from committing crime.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Yet, rehabilitation gives criminals the opportunity to return to society as upright citizens and to end recidivism. While threats of punishment deter crime and punishment are effective, there should still be rehabilitation to fix the underlining issues to end recidivism. Rehabilitation has taken a back seat to the concept “get tough on crime,” for a couple years, and only result increases in prison population with little effect on crime rates (Benson, 2003). Rehabilitation is more expensive and there is limited funds for rehabilitating
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.