Criminalisation of a certain conduct is a declaration by the society that it is a public wrong that should not be done which is is enforced by sanctions in order to supply a pragmatic reason for not doing it, and to censure those who nevertheless do it. Criminalisation of conduct inevitably involves an invasion or limitation of a person’s individual autonomy and is an intrusion, which must be adequately justified and controlled to ensure the protection of the individual’s fundamental right to freedom. Therefore, when policy and lawmakers make a decision to criminalise an act, it is a declaration that the particular act is a “public wrong” that must be prohibited by the imposition of criminal penalties. The question is how far the law should go in criminalising certain acts without trampling on the fundamental human rights of the actors. Ideally, objective criteria should be used by the state, in striking the appropriate balance.
The theorists have described some of these general principles and values as the principle of personal autonomy, the principle of welfare, the harm principle and offense principle. The objective of each of these principles is the promotion of ideals which may be considered worthy or good in themselves but when applied in a particular context or even culture may yield different or even unsatisfactory outcomes. With the evolution of modern society and changing societal values, what was once considered a “wrong” may become “a right” and certain criminal acts may now call for “decriminalisation” or legalisation. Decriminalisation implies the removal of criminal sanctions while legalisation suggests making the act legal, therefore not subjected to any sanctions or regulations. The application of t...
... middle of paper ...
...his significant imbalance. Legalising blackmails would allow greater protection for both parties. The blackmailer would be protected by ensuring that he receives the benefit of keeping a secret and the blackmailee would be protected from future demands for more money to keep the same secret later on.
It has been argued that legalising blackmail will serve only to encourage criminal activity and blackmail is not conducive to a moral state. Blackmail must be differentiated from the actual criminal activity and only those criminal acts should be punishable by law. Rather, blackmail should be treated as a typical contract which is protected by law. As the criminalisation of blackmail cannot be legally justified, it should be removed from the criminal statutes. It causes no harm or offence to others and it is an unnecessary infringement on the rights of the parties.
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.
The individuals within our society have allowed the people to assess and measure the level of focus and implementation of our justice system to remedy the modern day crime which conflicts with the very existence of our social order. Enlightening us to the devices that will further, establish the order of our society, reside in our ability to observe the Individual’s rights for public order. The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence-based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packers believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed, defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness.
should be enforced over human laws, and society’s deviations from this norm, such as “the
...lacks, and men. Furthermore, the competing paradigms influence public policy. Those that maintain acts as voluntary are more inclined to punish the individual or group, however those that are seen to act under determined forces, judge treatment to be more suitable. Even though these theories contrast, they still contain similarities which are shared in the new penology. Aspects are taken from all to create a new perspective on crime that centres on the management of offenders.
Prohibition was a period in which the sale, manufacture, or transport of alcoholic beverages became illegal. It started January 16, 1919 and continued to December 5, 193. Although it was formed to stop drinking completely, it did not even come close. It created a large number of bootleggers who were able to supply the public with illegal alcohol. Many of these bootleggers became very rich and influential through selling alcohol and using other methods. They started the practices of organized crime that are still used today. Thus, Prohibition led to the rapid growth of organized crime.
Next, we will discuss these principles. Logically, crime does harm to everyone that is involved. First, the victim involved is harmed either physically, emotionally, or monetarily. Second, perpetrator or offender is harmed when they are removed from society and their family. Hence, their societal and familial bonds are severed. Lastly, society is harmed because the offender enters the criminal justice system. Then, they likely will end up in prison/jail which will result in them having to be supported by tax payer’s
Prohibition, which was also known as The Noble Experiment, lasted in America from 1920 until 1933. There are quite a few results of this experiment: innocent people suffered; organized crime grew into an empire; the police, courts, and politicians became increasingly corrupt; disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance—alcohol—increased dramatically, year by year. These results increased each of the thirteen years of this Noble Experiment, and they never returned to the levels that existed before 1920. Prohibition did not happen instantly, it settled on the country gradually, community by community, town by town, and eventually state by state for almost a century. The onset of National Prohibition in 1920 was merely the final blow. The first of the laws, such as the one in Virginia in 1619, through New Hampshire's law of 1719 were against drunkenness, not against drinking. The first law that limited liquor sales was implemented because of the religious beliefs of citizens. This particular law was passed in New York in 1697; it ordered that all public drinking establishments be closed on Sunday because, on the Lord's day, people should be worshiping the Bible not the bottle. In 1735, the religious had a prohibition law enacted for the entire state of Georgia. The law was a complete failure and was abandoned in 1742. For the most part, however, during the 1700s and early 1800s, those opposing liquor on religious grounds used sermons and persuasion rather than politics and laws to make their point. These persuasive efforts were known as the Temperance Movement, and its goal was to get everyone to voluntarily temper use of spirits. Maine went completely dry in 1851 and, by 1855, so had New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York Alabama passed a Prohibition law in 1907 which became effective on January 1, 1909. Also in Alabama, the publishing of liquor advertisements and the circulation of other materials containing alcohol and liquor advertisements were prohibited in 1915. By 1920, thirty-three states encompassing 63% of the country had already voted themselves dry (Cherrington 344).
It can be argued that ‘crimes of indifference are more immoral because it can be said that when they are committing these crimes they are not concerned with whom they are harming, but when someone commits an intentional act they want to harm who they want to harm and they know why they are committing the act’. These Acts of indifference can be seen in the example of corporate crimes.
Ultimately, Rachels offers a more comprehensive consideration of the different potential interpretations of moral desert. His comparison of three legal responses using four distinction values make it very clear to the reader that, despite concerns over the value of moral desert, retribution is the most desirable option currently available to the criminal justice system. His evaluation of retributivism, deterrence and rehabilitation answers Shafer-Landau's central assertion that a comparative evaluation of retributivism could not be made within a short article. Furthermore, Rachels's argument is more pragmatic, making intuitive sense to those who may
"And Punishment: Crime." The Economist US 27 January 1996, v338 n7950. : 25. Online. Expanded Academic Index. 16 October 1999.
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
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.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
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.