Criminological Theory
Question 1
The classical school of criminology saw the human being as basically rational, portrayed pain and pleasure as the two main determinants of human behavior, and regarded punishment as necessary to deter law violators and to serve as an example. The classical school was established out of enlightenment. The main principles of the classical school of criminology were the belief of free will, individual choice, deterrence as a goal of the justice system, and punishment as a natural consequence of crime. Human rights were one of the oldest ideas of this school. Human rights based on the classical school of criminology are the basic freedoms to which every human being is entitled to. The government and society are expected to show respect to the rights of each person. Human rights also reduce the need for imprisonment.
Another important precept that marked this school of criminology was deterrence. Punishments are used as a way to deter criminals and serve as an example to those who might want to go against the laws. The classical school also states that the law is meant to protect the rights of society and the individual, and its main purpose is to prevent criminal actions. Thus, classical law accentuated moral accountability and the need for citizens to fully consider the consequences of their actions before they acted. The main aim of punishment, in its existence, is evil and should be used when dealing with a greater evil. Therefore, punishment can only be used in case of deterrence. The classical school established two different types of deterrence which included an individual form and a societal form. Specific deterrence points to the person who has committed criminal activity. The punishment is therefore supposed to tantamount to the crime committed such that the offender will remember the obnoxiousness of the punishment and not repeat the act.
Question 2
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were the most influential political philosophers of the contemporary world. One of the main and important theory is social contract theory. Social contract theory is based on the idea that moral and political responsibilities are based on a contract that leads to the creation of civil society. Thomas Hobbes initially came up with the idea of a social contract in his writing, Leviathan. Other political philosophers based their ideas on Hobbes’ theory and advanced it. John Locke was one of those philosophers and he represents a different view of the formation of civil society.
Although these two philosophers presented different ideas on social contract theory, they exhibit some similarities. Hobbes was for the idea that political authority is founded on the self-interest of the members of the society, most of which are considered equal. He stated that there was no person with the power to rule over the rest. Hobbes conservatively stated that the sovereign should have total authority to control society without disruption.
The two philosophers established that power is created to protect the people, their property, and their welfare. This has shaped the society in that the rulers in current society are supposed to act in the interests of the people, through a social agreement. When kings fail to protect social interests, they become tyrants, and social contract is abandoned. People living in this state will be in constant fear of each other before they converge again to form a society. This is where the process of creating a social contract starts again. People will come together and find a solution for a better life. Therefore, both Hobbes and Locke consented the fact that those living in a certain society will converge to form a contract among themselves, which finally results in society.
Question 3
Hedonistic calculus is a method of working out the total sum of pleasure and pain produced by an action, and therefore the total value of its consequences. In the process of determining the right action in a certain situation, this method considers the pleasures and pains accrued from such actions, concerning their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. The next action is looking into the next alternative course of action. Generally, this method determines the action with the best tendency, and thus right. Bentham imagined that calculus would be used in the formulation of criminal law reforms by calculating the minimum penalty necessary depending on the crime committed.
Bentham postulated that happiness was the ultimate good and it was pleasure and absence of pain. He recognized the egoistic and hedonistic nature of people’s motivation but said that the increase of general happiness was the right method of promoting moral behavior. The main principle of Hedonism is that actions are immoral if they do not seem to increase the happiness of every person likely to be affected. An action that seems to increase the happiness of all involved parties is the only morally right action. Through the happiness principle, Bentham argued his legal reforms. He said this was the fairest way to evaluate actions and pass legislation. Hedonic calculus was to be applied in different situations to determine what should, morally looking, done in a certain situation. Through Hedonic calculus, legislators could calculate the amount of pleasure and pain that would likely be caused by different actions. The Hedonic calculus needs a methodology for calculating pleasure, which then needed an understanding of the type of pleasure and mainly the aspects of pleasure that are important for us. Punishments would then be passed based on the calculated amount of pleasure and pain.
Question 4
Most people who support “3 strikes” laws claim that it will have a deterrent impact on violent crime. I fell that these laws will not stop many criminals from committing crimes because most criminal activities are not planned. They happen out of anger, from passion, or even under the influence of drugs. The idea of giving a life sentence will not deter people who act from impulsive reactions without thinking about the probable results of their actions. Criminals who repeat these actions do not consider the penalties they may face because they do not anticipate being caught.
Three strikes law is also not good for the economy since putting someone in jail for the rest of their live cost taxpayers money to feed and take care of them. On the other hand, for criminals, it is both a positive and a negative endeavor. For most criminals who have already hit the two strikes, they will most likely not commit a third strike if they know and are aware of the consequences. On the other hand, this law makes criminals commit the first and the second strikes since they know they are capable of doing it.
Three strikes law can also lead to a large increase in violent crimes especially against police, corrections officers, and the public at large. A criminal expecting mandatory life imprisonment would most likely resist arrest, kill a witness, or runway from the prison. Therefore I believe that three strikes law should not be there since crime is a very broad area. Judges should be guided by set rules that determine whether a criminal should go through a rehabilitation process or if they should be put to death. It would be cheaper and better to put a dangerous criminal to death. Three strikes law can cause more loss of lives.
Question 5
Rational choice theory is founded on basic tenets of classical criminology which says that people can freely choose their behavior and are driven by the evasion of pain and search for pleasure. The main advantage of this theory is that it provides a micro-perspective on which offenders decide to commit certain crimes. People have the liberty to choose to participate in certain crimes since it can be rewarding, easy, and satisfactory. The main idea behind this theory is that people are rational and have the liberty to choose the behavior that they can control or modify depending on the expected punishment.
Routine activities theory is a part of the rational choice theory. It says that for a crime to take place there should be a motivated criminal with offender intentions and the power to actualize these thoughts, there should also be a suitable target, and lastly, there should be no barriers to prevent the occurrence of this crime. The main strength is that it offers a macro perspective such that it can predict how developments in the social and economic situations can lead to the general crime and rate of victimization. Routine activities theory creates a relationship between the offending patterns on the available opportunities to offend. The availability of unprotected targets and sufficient rewards motivate the offender to commit the crime.
The most fundamental weaknesses of these theories are that the lack of a guardian can lead to criminal activities. Guardians shape the behavior and create a protective shield against the target. These can either be a person or video surveillance cameras. Lack of guardians creates room for the occurrence of crimes thus weakening the theory. The presence of an opportunity supported by a lack of a guardian maximizes criminal motivations and the probability of an offense happening. Therefore, rational thinking is influenced by the availability of a chance to commit a crime.
Question 6
Just the desert model is a philosophy of punishment and argues that criminal punishments should be equal with the gravity of the crime. The model argues that the frequency and the visibility of crime should be associated with the severity of the punishment. The visibility of a crime is a good indicator of the judicial decisions that would be made to imprison and the duration of the incarceration. The model has been criticized because it is not entirely concerned with rehabilitation but mostly ‘an eye for an eye’ punishment. The model does not think about the future of the involved person, and it does not discriminate between any crimes. This means it does not give any assurance that the involved person will not do the same criminal activity more severely. The individual might commit the crime but they might be more careful the second time because they have tasted the punishment before. The model states that the involved individual may not view the crime as a wrong thing in a moral sense, but only see it as a wrong since people punishing him say that it is wrong, therefore the criminal may feel even more disengaged with the society.
The Just Deserts Model does not fall in line with Mathew 5:38-42 because it supports vengeance. Mathew5:38-42 agitates for a punishment that fits the offense but it should be a kind action. It states that forgiving offenders is the best and equal punishment you can give someone because the lord will repay the offender. The verse prohibits the use of frivolous legal actions which do not match with the provisions of the Just Deserts Model. It is therefore right to say that Mathew 5:38-42 provides for a chance to forgive those who have wronged us while Just Deserts Model proposes that an offense should be served with equal punishment.
Reference
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminology today: An integrative introduction. Prentice-Hall.
References