Introduction
In the past few decades, crime has increased in the whole world. Researchers have found criminal activities to be associated with increasing costs in combating these crimes. National governments are spending increasing on the mechanisms they put in place to combat crime (Press Kit, 2000). These governments have deployed increased number of police, prosecution officers, courts that try offenders and correction units such as prisons. However, developing countries have recorded higher rates of crime; spending up to 14% against 5%spent by developed countries. Nevertheless, this increased spending has not achieved equivalent results in reversing crime or reform offenders. Additionally, the number of repeat offenders in several countries has remained high at almost above 50%.
This paper gives an analysis of a criminal punishment program that has been used in combating criminal activities in both the developed and developing countries. In this paper, I will discuss the history and results of the court and prisons, and how national and international governments to reduce the rate of occurrence of these criminal activities have used them.
Additionally, the paper will discuss the classical criminological theory and its consistency with the court and prison programs. In relation to this theory, I will majorly discus deterrence as a method used by the courts and prisons to reform criminals and make them more productive members of the society (MacKenzie 2000). According to utilitarianism and its view on punishment, punishing criminals does not imply giving them what they deserve by exacting revenge or retribution to them. It further asserts that inflicting suffering on the criminals without compensating gain in happiness is very unethical and against the societal requirements (Tunick, 2000). Therefore, deterrence, which aims at ensuring the offenders do not commit the same offences after the correction is more appropriate in the reform process.
I have incorporated courts in this program since they serve the function of referring these offenders into these correction facilities – the prisons where they are punished for their criminal activities. Different national governments have adopted different criminal justice systems. For this reason, considering the criminal justice of every individual government would require a lot of time and resources. Therefore, I have narrowed my research to the American Criminal Justice System.
History of the American Criminal Justice System
The American criminal justice system has three major composition parts, which include the police, the courts and prisons.
The police force:
The modern police forces in the U.S. trace their history to Alfred the great, who was an English King of the seventeenth century. During his reign, families that swore to their allegiance organized patrols that he organized in the regions. He also appointed an official to oversee the operations of these patrol teams. With time, these patrols grew to bigger alliances headed by the reeve of the shire, which was later called sheriff.
The system endured well and was also adopted by England colonialists who later elected or appointed sheriffs charged with the responsibility of maintaining peace. During the early 1700s, New York, Philadelphia and Boston established night watches. However, in 1705, Philadelphia created 10 patrol areas.
Population growth and industrialization during the period between American Revolution and Civil Wars spurred the development of municipal police departments. By 1830, Philadelphia had organized an independent 24-hour police force. New York followed in the 1840s to create day and nighttime forces. Nevertheless, the sheriff system has never been abolished by many countries despite the existence of the formal current day policing systems. The major difference between these two systems is the fact that sheriffs are elected while the government appoints police.
Courts:
One of the major causes of rebellion in the pre-revolutionary era was that in certain cases, colonists were not given equal rights as the Englishmen under the Magna Carta. This eventually led to the establishment of American pre-revolutionary courts that followed the laws of Great Britain. The American court system was mapped out following the adoption of the U.S. constitution in 1787. Two of the amendments to the U.S. constitution addresses criminal justice: while the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, the sixth amendment lists the rights of individuals who have been formally charged with crimes. In the latter amendment, the juries determine the facts in a trial as well as weighing the truthfulness of sworn testimony. They also make the decision on whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.
Corrections:
The British penal system, which was used in the colonial period majorly, relied on punishing and executing law offenders. However, in the 1800s, more states resorted to imprisoning these offenders as opposed to the latter system. Nevertheless, the idea of reforming offenders took hold in the next century (Misis 2011). By the mid of 1800s, reformers diverted their focus to deterrence and rehabilitation since they had lost patience with the idea of reforming the offenders. Many of the penitentiaries, which were places where the criminals worked and did their penitence, were changed to reformatories. Later, the idea of treating criminals for their tendencies with corrective therapies, for instance imposing total silence in prisons and requiring the inmates to wear uniforms was adopted.
The current criminal justice systems majorly focus on rehabilitating offenders and later releasing them back to the society. During their retention in these correctional facilities, offenders are equipped with life skills such as job training and housing assistance near their release dates (Misis 2011).
Classical theory in criminology and deterrence
This theory traces its roots in the 18th century theories of Italian nobleman and economist, the English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. During this time, punishment for criminal activities was extremely severe. This theory reflected on rationalism and humanitarianism of the philosophy of the Age of enlightenment (Akers & Christine, 2004). According to the developers of this theory, punishment of crime had to be more rational as compared to the brutal ways of punishment adopted at that time. They believed on the construction of a hierarchy of punishing offenders, where the degree of severity of the punishment depended on the seriousness of the offence, and the number of times the offender has been punished for the same crime previously. Additionally, imposition of the death penalty depended on the severity of the crime as opposed to the actual act committed or the degree of the offender’s involvement in the criminal activity. According to this theory, crime occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs, especially when people pursue self-interest in the absence of punishments (Akers & Christine 2004).
The rational choice deterrence bases its argument on the classical theory. It views crime as a choice that is influenced by its costs and benefits, which implies that rationality determines criminal activities. Additionally, raising the costs of crime is more likely to deter its occurrence. For instance, if more punishment were applied on a criminal activity, its occurrence would eventually reduce. However, this depends on the certainty and immediateness of the costs.
Deterrence bases its argument on theories that assert that punishing law offenders would discourage the individual and potential offenders from becoming repeat offenders and discourage the societal members from engaging in similar criminal activities. The main goal of deterrence is to scare away the members of the society from engaging in criminal activities in the fear of suffering the consequences of punishment. Deterrence supports a criminal justice system that guarantees that all lawbreakers be apprehended, convicted, and punished. Additionally, these people would not receive any personal benefits from their criminal activities. However, philosophers have indicated that for an individual to be exposed to deterrence, it must be ascertained that the degree of their reflective capacity prior to committing the crime would be enough to consider the consequences of violating the law if they are arrested. Nevertheless, most criminal activities occur when the offenders’ reflective capabilities have been compromised, thereby rendering some crimes impossible to subject to deterrence.
In a broader perspective, punishment may be expected to affect deterrence in either of two ways. First, if the certainty of punishing criminal activities is increased, the potential offenders may be deterred from engaging in criminal activities by the risk of apprehension. For instance, if the number of state troopers patrolling highway on a holiday weekend were increased, most drivers would prefer reducing their speed to receiving a ticket. Secondly, the severity of the punishment given to a criminal may influence the behavior of would-be offenders. In this case, these potential offenders would weigh the consequences of engaging in criminal activities and get discouraged by the severity of the punishment related to such criminal activities.
Conclusion
According to the classical theory in crime, punishment should be rational to the criminal activity the offenders are charged with them or else people would perceive the punishment as unjust and revolt. Additionally, this theory also believes that people are rational in their actions are subject to swift, certain, just and sufficiently severe punishments (Elgin 2005). The criminal justice systems ensure that the above principles are practiced in punishing offenders. For instance, in relation to deterrence, increasing the numbers of arrests by the police and eventually sending these criminals to correction facilities such as prisons, while giving sufficiently severe punishment would deter potential offenders from engaging in criminal activities. Additionally, since the death penalty is the most severe punishment, it has provided the deterrent effects. Some criminal justice systems prefer increasing the length of jail terms for severe crimes to deter the potential offenders.
However, the major challenge to this program is the inability to catch offenders rather than sentencing them. Most criminals are cunning thereby making it difficult for the police forces to arrest and bring them to justice. Therefore, most criminals always go unpunished for their criminal activities. Finally, whether potential offenders and criminals are deterred depend o individual characteristics such as social class, risk taking, moral development, impulsivity and gender. Since it is generally believed that, every member of the society can commit a crime if they are motivated by conditions, it is appropriate to apply deterrent sanctions to both law abiding and stubborn members of the society. Informal deterrents achieve better results in law-abiding citizens while formal deterrence is more effective in dealing with criminals.
References:
MacKenzie D. L. (2000), Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention1: chapter 9. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm
Press Kit, (February 2000), Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders: Preventing Crime and Cutting its Costs. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088c.htm
Misis M. (2011). “History of Corrections in America.” Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.professorgizzi.org%2Fcjs200%2Fweek-1%2Fcj_352_history_of_correctio.pdf&ei=oHSMUfDPAY3aigKjioHADQ&usg=AFQjCNFfJjADf6vKHM78LxmxacyabLCNvQ&sig2=h6yHLfSSKJyYl32PckIQ2A&bvm=bv.46340616,d.cGE
Akers R. L. & Christine S. S., (2004). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Applications: Fourth Edition retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CFoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Froxbury.net%2Fimages%2Fpdfs%2Fct4ssg.pdf&ei=jnWMUf2KGar-igLd44GADA&usg=AFQjCNFaYzVFzvafKTvUKPTM_xK0p5vkcw&sig2=KCQSng664IqTQQd0UhWaUg&bvm=bv.46340616,d.cGE
Elgin K., (2005). Crime and Punishment. New York City: Cherrytree Books.
Tunick M. (2000). Practices and Principles: Approaches to Ethical and Legal Judgment: Princeton paperbacks. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
