Criminology theories
1.
The three theories that hold the greatest potential to make society safer if implemented in the criminal justice policy and practice are corrective Justice, procedural Justice and retributive justice. Corrective Justice is found in modern-day contract law and it is based on the belief that holding the guilty party liable for the crime committed will rectify the injustice inflicted on the victim (Johnson, n.d). Corrective Justice, therefore, tries to rectify or compensate the victim by punishing the guilty party and ensuring that the punishment given is equal to the crime committed. Its use in modern-day contract law adds to its empirical validity. The theory has major policy implications as it holds the culprit accountable for their actions and also guides the legal system in deciding what steps to take when serving a sentence for the crime committed.
Procedural Justice on the other hand tries to ensure that the process that is used to investigate the crime and punish the criminals accordingly is fair and free from bias. Significant research has been conducted to try and identify fair and just processes to use when investigating crimes and examining the evidence before a sentence is issued (Johnson, n.d). Procedural Justice has great importance is it prevents the justice system from exploiting its powers. When delivering Justice the justice system has to ensure that proper investigations were conducted evidence collected and that the evidence is presented in court to allow for deliberation and also to give the accused a chance to prove their innocence (Barnesco et al, 2017). The theory, therefore, has major policy implications as it determines how the justice system approaches crime and sentencing of those suspected of committing the crime.
Lastly, retributive Justice seeks to ensure that the punishment issued is equivalent to the crime committed. During implementation, the justice system is expected to collect enough evidence before determining whether the accused is guilty. Once a guilty verdict is issued, the legal system under the attributes of Justice theory has a responsibility to ensure that the punishment of prison sentence issued is the reflection of the crime the accused is found guilty of. As a result, most rulings are made after careful observation of not only the evidence but also similar cases that were held in the past to determine what sentencing is appropriate thus proving the theory's empirical validity (Fedorek, 2015). The theory has major policy implications as it helps the justice system to determine what procedures to follow when issuing sentences.
The three theories can be integrated to form one powerful explanation especially because they all seek to offer justice and retribution. The powerful explanation will encompass the retributive Justice’s premise that the crime and the punishment should be equal and also that of corrective Justice where the punishment issued offered compensation to the victim while still punishing the offender. Ensuring that the processes involved are fair and humane encompasses the provisions of the procedural Justice theory thereby creating a powerful explanation that seeks fairness retribution and compensation in the rulings made by the justice system.
The classical deterrence theory assumes that people will make decisions based on what will bring them pleasure or benefits and prevent them from experiencing pain or discomfort. It further assumes that people will engage and pursue their desires if not deterred and thus may even engage in criminal activity (Johnson, n.d). As such any punishment that is used to deter or seek retribution for a crime committed should be swift and equally proportional to the crime committed to discouraging others from engaging in similar crimes. The theory works by informing the public of actions that are classified as criminal activity and also the punishments that will be for those who engage in such actions. The public on the other hand is expected to make rational decisions based on the information provided and abstain from engaging in such actions. The effectiveness of deterrence is therefore dependent on the public's ability to perceive the information issued as a threat.
Modern updates of the theory have evolved to try and explain why people engage in criminal activity. Since the theory assumes that everyone has the potential to commit a crime but only some select few choose to engage in criminal activity, a closer analysis can help to understand why some people choose to engage in criminal activity while others opt out (Reynald & Lecrelc, 2017). This has allowed for the expansion of the concept of deterrence and different approaches have been considered and used to help people reform after being convicted of a crime and also to help discourage others from engaging in criminal activity. The modern updates of the theory have helped to come up with policies that target not only criminals who have already been convicted of a crime but also citizens who are yet to engage in any crime thereby discouraging them from criminal activity.
In the past, fear was the major form of deterrence and the type of punishment used was intended to scare criminals thus preventing them from engaging in other crimes in the future. The strict punishment was also used to discourage others from starting a Life of crime. Over the years however fear has been substituted with reason and the punishment issued serves the purpose of ensuring that the guilty party is held accountable for the actions they engaged in (Tomlinson, 2016). While it is still a deterrent it creates the opportunity for other more humane means of discouraging crime such as reason. Measures have been taken to help prisoners reform while in prison by educating them on the evils of engaging in crime and what avenues they can pursue to earn an honest living. A lot of emphasis has been placed on educating criminals and society on the harm that crime causes as a way to discourage criminal activity rather than simply relying on long prison sentences and other forms of punishment.
The modern updates in classical deterrence theory suggest that it is possible to increase the deterrent effect. Individuals found guilty of a crime receive different sentencing and other forms of punishment depending on the crimes they committed. Therefore there are different levels of deterrence the reflex the nature of the crime and the harm or damage it caused. Increasing the punishments can therefore discourage people from engaging in the crying out of fear of suffering the consequences. Since the theory assumes that everyone is aware of actions that are considered criminal and only a select few engage in criminal activity it then means that the criminals make rational decisions to engage in crime even after knowing the consequences that will follow. Increasing the severity of the punishment will therefore increase the deterrent effect because the consequences will be higher than what is already present.
The deterrent effect is determined by the attitude that the general public has towards the punishments but before those who engage in crime. If the punishment is not strict enough it creates an environment where people who are considering engaging in criminal activity have little to fear and are more likely to commit crimes either in the hope that they will not be caught or because they have weighed their options and do not consider the punishment too severe to discourage them from engaging in crime (Johnson, n.d). Some crimes bear little repercussions and therefore do little to discourage others from engaging in them. Lenient prison sentences for example encourage people to engage in crime because the punishment is something they can bear. Prisons have also become more comfortable and are considered by some criminals as a way of life. Making the prison sentences stricter and reducing the comfort for inmates will therefore make the stay unbearable and further raise the deterrent effect.
3.
The three premises and assumptions of conflict theory are comprised of competition revolution structural inequality and war. Competition theory is based on the assumption that competition is a constant Factor and often overwhelming in all aspects of human interaction and the relationships that people build with one another. The competition is brought about by scarcity of resources and major commodities that people need to survive in their daily lives. People compete for commodities like money property leisure time social status sexual partners among others. Competition is there for a default setting and people often compete with one another out of fear that the resources present are not enough to benefit everyone equally.
The revolution theory assumes that for change to happen in a year in a power-driven environment various factors bring about change in a gradual process. However, since the resources and opportunities needed to bring about this revolution and not divided equally among members of the community the change that occurs or revolution is a result of the conflict between the different groups that are used to classify people in society and the desire to rise above their current position (Hayes, 2020). Structural inequality theory on the other hand is based on the premise that human relationships and interactions as well as the social structures that people create a likely to experience inequalities of power. Commonly, specific individuals groups and organizations will process different traits and qualities that determine what position the individual or group occupies in society’s social structure. Organizations and individuals that occupy top positions in society work hard to maintain their position as this gives them the power and influence associated with air pollution.
War is often regarded as a unifier or a cleanser of the inequalities that exist in society. The inequalities that exist in society force organizations and individuals to engage in conflict either to improve their position in society or to retain the power and control they already have and prevent it from being distributed to those that occupy the lower levels in society’s structure (Fedorek, 2015). On the one hand, war can help to unify society after the conflict or even before the conflict is resolved to prevent it from destroying society. There are however occurrences where war becomes unmanageable and its destructive nature affects both those at the top of social structure as well as the low ranking individuals.
Anker's criteria for evaluating theories can be used to create a better understanding of competition theory. The logic used in the theory is consistent in that it shows how conflict arises in society as a result of people's inability to equally share the resources present. The theory argues that competition occurs because the resources present are scarce and competition is the best way to ensure that one benefits from the opportunities present (Fedorek, 2015). The theory has a wide scope as it focuses on competition as a general term to help explain why people choose to compete rather than working together to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in society. The general definition of competition used in the theory encompasses competition for things like money food employment the ability to lead a desirable lifestyle and other factors that promote competition (Johnson, n.d). Despite its wide scope, however, the theory is parsimonious as it is simple to understand and gives a concise explanation of how the scarcity of resources forces people to compete with one another.
The theory has empirical value as it discusses occurrences that can be tested and also easily examined in society. It can also be used as a call to action to encourage people groups and organizations to seek out ways to utilize the resources available equally rather than competing with one another. While the resources may be scarce society has remained sustainable and competition or scarcity maybe as a result of the few people and organizations who seek to attain more than others thereby creating a shortage for those who are not as competitive.
Feminist and black criminology should be included among conflict arguments especially because of the similarities that they share. Both feminist and black criminology recognize an important connection between intimate partner abuse towards women that is attributed to gender and race as well as cultural and structural influences that exist in society (Potter, 2006). If included in conflict arguments feminist and black criminology can help to create a more precise explanation of the impact that vices such as black partner abuse affect women and further makes it difficult to seek help because of the constructs that exist in society. A good example of feminist criminology is intimate partner violence against women. Butter against black women on the other hand gives an example of black criminology as it focuses specifically on violence against people of a specific race (Johnson, n.d). When approached separately feminist and black criminology may fail to demonstrate the effect that each vice has on the victim and in society in general. When included among concrete arguments however the information gained from them can help to educate people on how such actions affect society as well as what can be done to resolve them.
4.
The underlying assumption of control theory is that people are born selfish and that they will likely engage in criminal activity if left unsupervised or if they believe that the crime will result in some form of gain without punishment. Under control theory, it is assumed that the tendency to engage in crime is not as a result of opportunity but rather the absence or lack of fear of the measures of deterrence set in place to discourage criminal activity (Johnson, n.d). It, therefore, differs from other theories like string theory which is based on the premise that people are naturally good but are likely to engage in crime if bad things happen to them. Unlike control theory where people's likelihood to commit a crime is influenced by selfish reasons, strain theory presents bad experiences as the main factor that pushes people to a Life of Crime (Johnson, n.d). Learning theory on the other hand assumes that people will engage in crime only after they have learned about the crime they intend to engage in the attitude of those involved in the criminal activity and the risk involved before engaging in the crime. And like control theory, the decision to commit a crime is influenced by the information collected on the respective crime rather than the opportunity or selfish nature of human beings.
Control theory also differs from strain and learning theory in that it seeks to identify the type of controls that people may have that prevent some from engaging in crime and not others. Strain theory examines the bad things that occur in an individual’s life while learning theory close attention to the information that is available to an individual which helps in forming the decision to engage in crime (Johnson, n.d). They however failed to show how some people will refrain from engaging in crime despite the existence of information on the crime in question and pressure from bad things that occur regularly. Control theory, therefore, offers a better explanation as to why some people choose to engage in crime while others do not and therefore a more suitable theory of crime causation.
References
Bernasco, W., Van, G. J.-L., & Elffers, H. (2017). The Oxford handbook of offender decision making. Oxford University Press
Fedorek B, (2015) “Introduction to the criminal justice system” retrieved from, https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/chapter/4-11-control-theories/
Hayes A, (2020) “Conflict theory” retrieved from, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp
Potter H, (2006) “An argument for black feminist criminology” Sage Publications, retrieved from, http://users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Potter_06_FemCrim.pdf
Reynald, D. M., & Leclerc, B. (2017). The future of rational choice for crime prevention. Routledge
Tomlinson K, (2016) “An examination of deterrence theory: Where do we stand?” Tarrant County Adult Community Supervising and Corrections Department, retrieved from, https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/80_3_4_0.pdf
