Criminal Justice System and Inequilty in America

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Poverty & Inequality

American life is characterized by a massive divide between the poor and the rich. It is this division that brings a lot of inequalities in the country. In essence, this justifies why those who are poor and sidelined result in crime just to sustain themselves. Reiman and Leighton (90) define criminals and crime in terms of poverty, uneven distribution of wealth, and a failed system of criminal justice. This skewed governance does not help in safeguarding the country from a threat to sustainable living and acquisition of wealth.

Ferguson and Marzilli (11) introduce yet another concept of crime; the white-collar crime, and note that it involves intellectuals. Therefore, poverty and inequality may not necessarily mean that the sidelined and poor in the country are the only ones indulging themselves in crime. Some well to do people are also criminals. It is only that they do this using a high level of intelligence. Ferguson and Marzilli (11) offer an example of a person taking money from investors by telling them that he or she would invest their money.

Prison

As the title suggests, the rich continue to get rich, and the poor head to prisons. As highlighted by Reiman and Leighton (90), the resultant effect of inequality and poverty is a crime and the emergence of criminals. They are then holed in prisons, which do not help due to poor management and ineffectiveness. The criminal justice system has failed, and as such, the poor find themselves spending a lot of time in prison while the rich who also steal get away scot-free (Reiman & Leighton 328).

There is a negative notion that prisons are preserves of the poor. With an effective criminal justice system, the rich who steal in the most intelligent way should also be taken to prison. Ferguson and Marzilli (57) qualify the use of prison and write that while they may not be the ultimate resort, they help the criminals and drug addicts with potential rehabilitation of the criminal and treatment for those who use drugs.

Guns

Evidently, criminals have got a way of sustaining themselves. One way is by use of force and guns as weapons. As amplified by Reiman and Leighton (23), the failed nature of criminal justice helped the criminals’ access guns and other weapons at will. Boger and Welger (96) categorically note that 64% of murders committed in America are executed using firearms. Most of these are handguns to mean that there are plenty of firearms that are held illegally by people, especially those who are poor. According to Reiman and Leighton (39), the failure to control crime can be blamed on an ineffective system of justice. There are no effective measures that help in controlling poverty, which may lead to crime.

Drugs

Crime and drugs are inseparable. There is a close correlation between poverty and crime and the use of drugs. Reiman and Leighton (34) note that most poor people find solace in abusing drugs before even turning into crime. Boger and Wegner (96) note that the increase of violence in American society is due to the rampant use of drugs. This implies that the use of drugs, poverty, and crime are very well related, and if the crime is to be minimized, anti-drug abuse and poverty reduction campaigns should be reinforced.

White-collar crime and death due to negligence from being treated as criminals

There is a division in opinion in regard to white-collar crime in the United States. While some support prosecution of highly placed persons or defend white-collar crime, there are others who object it. The general view is that all crimes should be prosecuted, thereby defending white-collar crime. The following are four objections to white-collar crime and subsequent counter-argument.

Objection one: Intent

Behaviors of executives in an organization resulting in particular harm cannot be categorized as intended murder. Even when the executives act negligently, it may not be put as a regulatory offense; rather, it falls in the category of criminal law. However, people in an organization can only be liable for an offense that is foreseeable and not an offense that could have been controlled (Reiman & Leighton, 74). For example, if workers continue to work in a mine that is likely to collapse, that may be put as foreseeable harm. However, if the hazardous risks result from bad policies in the organization, then the executives have a regulatory offense.

Objection two: Direct harm

It is more terrifying to be harmed directly by a person than being harmed impersonally and indirectly (Reiman & Leighton, 75). For example, having money unfairly or having the property taken is not the same as dying. This is despite the fact that the felony committed is equal. However, the defenders are right to put the same on the same level.

Objection three: Legitimate Productive Activity

It is an eviler to harm a person during an illegitimate action than harming a person in a legitimate action (Reiman & Leighton, 76). All risks should be avoided irrespective of perceived laxity in safety precautions. The claim that face-to-face harm is more illegitimate than precaution safety may only be right in punishment measure. However, it does not mean that there should be no measures to curb some of the corporate risks.

Objection four: Free Consent

The harm that is inflicted on persons during working has some degree of consent simply because the person consented to work in the organization (Reiman & Leighton, 76). For example, hazardous risks are not as severe as harm inflicted face-to-face because the employee had agreed to work in the organization in the first place; thus a free consent. However, free consent has some degree to be considered. Free consent can only be the case when a person was made aware of the risks involved and still offered to take the job.

The US has the largest prison population in the world. Why is this good or bad? What could be done to reduce the prison population?

The crime rate in the United States of America is very high. In addition, the prison population in the US is among the largest, meaning that the rate of crime in the US is high. The following are merits and demerits of having such a prison population:

Merits

Basing on statistics for the year 2008, the 2.3 million offenders in the country provide a high level of prison labor. If this population could be utilized well, it means that there are high possibilities of turning this labor into productivity.
This number is a testimony that the security measures are intense and may reduce the crime rate in the country.
With offenders being held in prison for a long, the overall cost brought about by crime would significantly be reduced.

Demerits

The huge number is a testimony that criminal justice has failed and paints a negative picture of the country.
Many young persons and productive people are eliminated from active economic participation.

How to reduce the crime prison population

There is an urgent need to carry out reforms in the criminal justice system. As such, the justice department ought to do away with ineffective sentencing policies. The latter endangers the safety of members of the public. People who have been arrested for petty crimes should be given lesser jail terms instead of holding them for long in prison. It is also essential to have correction facilities rather than committing anyone to full jail terms.

What is meant by victimless crime? Describe three types of victimless crimes and explain how these crimes should be handled.

Victimless crime

This refers to illegal behavior that necessarily does not have violence in it or does not pose a threat to any rights of a person. Fernandez (25) underscores that some adult involvements like gambling, drugs, and prostitution fall under the wider categorization of victimless crimes. However, this does not imply that the behavior is acceptable or does not attract arrests by police; only that no particular outsider is involved as part of the behavior. This term has been misused in recent years, especially when it is used to mean that there was no serious involvement (Fernandez 25).

Types of victimless crimes

Crime without a victim

This perhaps defines what a victimless crime is, and it is where the person committing the crime cause harm in general terms, but no victim is involved. This crime only affects society, and the best way is for the government to tighten laws involving general misconduct.

Moral crimes

These are crimes that only affect the moral standing of a person and still are liable to prosecution. For example, sodomy is prohibited, but in essence, it comes when there are two consenting adults. Others include vagrancy, loitering, and public drunkenness, which may not involve or cause harm to anyone but can harm social order.

Crimes against the state

These are the crimes whereby the offended is the state and not an individual. An example of this is the lack of tax compliance when it is only the government money that is lost. Rape is also an example of victimless crime whereby even though there is a perpetrator who can be identified; essentially, it is the state which prosecutes the person.

Works Cited

Boger, John. & Judith, Welch Wegner. Race, poverty, and American cities. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Ferguson, John & Alan, Marzilli. White-Collar Crime. New York: InfoBase Publishing, 2010.

Fernandez, Justin. Victimless Crimes: Crime, Justice, and Punishment. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 2002.

Reiman, Jeffrey & Paul, Leighton. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice (9^th edition). New York: Pearson Education, 2009.

Click Here To Order Now!