Category: Crime Investigation

Introduction

Due process refers to the process that a government should use to handle its citizens in case of a law violation to ensure that there is justice and fairness. The government must under all circumstances respect every individuals legal rights as dictated by the law (Tribe, 1975). Due process refers to the government as the only body that can protect people through the law of land from being deprived of their rights by the state. According to the US constitution, the fifteenth and the sixteenth amendment states that the government should not deprive individuals right to life, liberty or property ownership unless by following the due process (Waseman, 2004, p. 1). Before the state deprives an individual of his protected interest, the due process facilitates for the person to be given notice and a chance to defend himself/herself. This is just one of the procedures of due process.

The due process is believed to have its origin from the Magna Carta. This was a personal treaty agreed upon by King John and some noblemen who were rebellious to his leadership. Apart from the noblemen, the Magna Carta also protected the rights of free men. This particular clause stated that No freeman shall be taken and imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed nor will we go upon him nor send upon him except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land (Waseman, 2004, p. 2). The term due process became operational in a 1354 reissue of the charter that allowed deprivation of a persons rights only after court proceedings whereby the individual was allowed to defend himself and that enough proof had to be produced.

Under certain circumstances, certain bodies of the government are given the power to violate some personal interests protected under the due process clause. For instance, the state prison regulation can do so by ensuring that it has substantive predicates and through some explicitly mandatory language, it must specify the results after the substantive predicates have been adhered to. For example, it is this facilitation that allows the state prison to have distinct and identifiable attire for the prisoners.

However, before the accused is convicted to be guilty, he must be allowed to wear his normal clothings through the trial process since deprivation of such right may trigger a biased court ruling. Furthermore, the accused must be duly notified of his offenses way before arresting to give him substantial room to prepare for the trial (Lectric Law Library, 1995-2000).

The Adversary System

The due process is brought into accomplishment through the adversary system which is lawyer controlled. The adversary system differs from the inquisitorial system used among civil law countries like Italy and France which is controlled more by judges than lawyers. However, the two systems have not been consistent in the control whereby we find at times judges taking more control in the adversarial system as well as the lawyers taking more control in the inquisitorial system (Subrin & Woo, 2006, p. 23)

The adversary system is composed of the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge (Samaha, 2005, p. 276). The prosecutor represents the government, the state, and the commonwealth team was mainly known as the peoples team (Samaha, 2005, p. 276) while the defendant represents the defense counsel. The judge is neutral in this case and his role is to listen to both parties and come up with a decision without taking sides. The peoples team and the defendant must therefore fight hard while maintaining fairness to convince the judge of their innocence or to prove the other party guilty. This is usually carried out by the rules which are clearly outlined by the constitution, the statute, and the court rules (Samaha, 2005, p. 276).

During the trial, the lawyers on both sides are only required to give their side of the story and nothing more while accompanied by evidence. The rules only allow them to present their argument and evidence to the judge in a manner favoring their interests or to their benefit. The judge is supposed to listen to both parties and through the powers given to him by the law to interpret the rules, he is meant to decide depending on the facts provided by the two parties on who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and who could be innocent. The adversary system portrays US justice as open, fair, impartial and dignified (Samaha, 2005, p. 276).

The adversary system was put into place to ensure that the true story wins after the case has been heard, all evidence produced and both parties have been allowed to give their side of the story. Unfortunately, the mission and the goals of the adversary system are not always reflected in many court rulings. This is usually brought about by various reasons. The prosecution and the defendants side may not be evenly matched leading to the improper presentation of information which may result in unfair conclusions.

This is usually determined by the ability of the lawyer to defend his client in court which may probably depend on the financial ability of the client to hire quality lawyers. Also, the trial judges may not be neutral as they are supposed to be whereby they may be taking sides thus resulting in unfair judgment. The case of the trial judges is triggered by the fact that they go through periodic elections thus they may rule a case in a manner to favor their future in the job (Samaha, 2005, p. 276).

The adversary system has not been the best for all and has been facing criticism from various critics based on its unfair areas. Critics of this system claim that it distorts the truth in various ways. For example, the parties involved may hide or distort the required evidence which denies the duly enough basis for their decision. Again, it is viewed as a costly and tedious system as it allows unnecessary arguments and wrangles. The adversary system is also viewed as unfair mainly to the poor. This is because the wealthy may have the financial ability to carry out more investigations and to hire skilled lawyers whereas the poor are left to utilize the limited public legal services (Subrin & Woo, 2006, p. 23).

Rights of the Accused

The adversary system outlines several rights that the accused is entitled to. First, the accused is entitled to the right to the due process, equal protection by law and right to duly trial (Subrin & Woo, 2006, p. 23). He should be given notice before any proceedings, be it arrest or decision-making after the case has been heard. He should also be allowed to defend himself. On the issue of equal protection by law, the accused should not be based on the grounds of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, whether it is an individual, business or state or on basis of wealth or political power (Subrin & Woo, 2006, p. 23). He has a right to challenge the government. He has a right to freedom and open competition in that he is entitled to the freedom of speech and is free to have a lawyer of his choice and settle on a fair fee (Subrin & Woo, 2006, p. 23).

Criminal Process

From what has been covered above, crime can be defined as any action carried out intentionally or accidentally that does violate the law. A crime has also been defined as: an offense against the state punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death (Court 2008, p. 1). It should be noted that a hurtful action does not automatically imply it is a crime but rather it must be an action which violates a criminal statute duly enacted by Congress, a state legislature, or some other public authority (Court 2008, p. 1).

A criminal process is said to occur upon the breaking of a law. Four steps can be identified in the criminal process: arrest, indictment, trial, and appeal (Court 2011, p. 1). If any of the first three steps are omitted then the due process is compromised and there would have been no justice done. The fourth step is usually carried out when there is a feeling that the first three steps were not carried out duly and thus it is a way of ensuring that the due process prevails in the course of the criminal process.

Procedures before a criminal trial

A criminal trial is preceded by some procedures. It has been shown that the procedures varied from state to state and are dependent on the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, some by court decisions, and others by legislative enactments (Court 1). However, generally speaking, the following steps are followed in the event of a criminal trial.

Arrest

This is described as the first encounter between the person accused and the state. A person can be arrested with a warrant or without one. A warrant of arrest is issued when a person has convinced a magistrate that there is a reason for a given person to be arrested. A person arrested without arrest occurs when the person is present at the scene of a crime or when a police officer is fully convinced that a person has participated in a violation of the law. It is noted that most of the arrests take place without arrest warrants. If the person violating the law is minor then most police officers are advised to give a warning in preference to an arrest. Another incidence when a police officer opts not to make an arrest is when the victim of a crime is perceived to have been involved in some misconduct.

Appearing before a Judge

After a person is arrested, the police make the necessary recording and the person ought to appear before a magistrate without any unnecessary delay. Only 48 hours are allowed for any person arrested without any warrant to be detained. Before a person appears before a magistrate he has a right to be informed of the crimes committed and the options which he/she can use to defend herself. The magistrate determines whether a person should be released on bail or not. The next step is the person is taken through the preliminary hearing. Grand juries are used in the preliminary hearing though it is noted that not all states use the grand juries.

If it is determined that the arrested person has a case to answer then arraignment follows. Arraignment has been defined as the process in which the defendant is brought before the judge in the court where he or she is to be tried to respond to the grand jury indictment or the prosecutors bill of information (Court 1). The defendant is informed of the options to defend himself/herself. The defendant can plead guilty or not guilty. If a defendant pleads not guilty then a trial date is set but if he/she pleads guilty then plea bargaining is agreed upon. Plea bargaining has three advantages: the defendant stands a chance to get a lesser charge; there is a possibility of avoiding a charge which has a social stigma, and the possibility of avoiding a felony.

Criminal Trial Hearing

A former trial proceeds if the defendant maintains innocence. The sixth amendment dictates that the accused person is entitled to a quick trial. The same amendment has requires that the jury be impartial. The Fifth Amendment dictates that: no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb (Court 1). The accused has a right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself (Court 1). Finally, according to due process, any evidence collected unconstitutionally cannot in any way be used against the accused.

The defendant can choose to have a judge or a jury hearing for the case. If the accused prefers the jury then they are vetted and the trial begins by opening statements being made from the prosecution and defense.

Afterward, the prosecutor presents the evidence and makes the necessary argument while the defense on the other hand defends the accused. The role of the jury in the course of the trial is usually passive. After the trial, the jury makes their decision based on the proceedings of the trial, and later the judge gives the ruling. If the accused is found not guilty then he/she is declared not guilty but if guilty then a sentence is passed. In case the accused is found guilty then he/she has an opportunity to appeal if there is a feeling that there was a mistake in the ruling.

Conclusion

The due process clause has been a very essential clause to the ordinary citizens since it is a means of assurance that every freeman has the freedom to enjoy his rights according to the law of land. There are many instances that people are mistakenly suspected of criminal cases and due process has always been there to ensure that these people are tried in the right manner. The adversarial system, the rights of the accused, and the post-arrest procedures are some of the essential components of the due process that has promoted peoples rights since its establishment.

References

Court. (2008). U.S. Criminal Court Process. US Dept. of State. Web.

Lectric Law Library. (1995-2011). Due Process. Lectric Law. Web.

Samaha, J. (2005). Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Subrin, S. & Woo, M. (2006). Litigating in America. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.

Tribe, L. (1975). The Structural Due Process. Hein Online. Web.

Waseman, R. (2004). Procedural Due Process. Westport, Greenwood publishing.

Introduction

The field of green criminology is relatively new, gaining popularity in the last two decades from where it was interpreted to mean urban crime problems according to Lynch (1990). This lack of attention was not a result of a lack of awareness on changes in the environment as a result of human activities as a lot of literature in this was available. The lack of attention is associated with the political agendas of the governments to control crime rather than paying attention to the connection between environmental degradation and the criminal justice system. Green criminology refers to harms and crimes done against the environment, not in a geospatial sense but in relation to the global ecosystem as a whole (White 2008). This term serves four main tasks: documenting the actual green crimes in all their forms, types and distinctions; outlining the way laws have been formulated in this area and their implications on political and other aspects; finding a link between green crimes and inequalities; and evaluating the roles of green social movements and the green critics.

Green criminology uses a variety of analytical tools in investigating issues of environmental damage in order to produce knowledge that is theoretical, pragmatic and politically grounded (Mc Laughlin and Muncie 2006). Criminology has thus, been explained in two theoretical platforms: first, environmental incidences are looked at through a traditional criminological outlook. Environmental crimes are then treated as crimes against persons and property and the challenge is to put in place systems that would effectively implement existing laws and punish offenders. Secondly, green and indeed other crimes are social creations influenced by social locations and power relations in the society. This way, the criminalization of environmental destruction is a struggle among competing social forces rather than events subjected to disinterested law (OBrien & Yar 2008). This essay analyzes environmental harm in the Niger Delta, Nigeria using the Green Criminological analysis of victimization and offenders.

Oil pollution in the Niger Delta

Delta crude Oil was first discovered in Niger Delta in 1956 which raised the hopes of this country of development. Nigeria joined the OPEC organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 1970. It has huge oil deposits, bigger than USAs and Mexicos combined. Oil contributes 95% of the Countrys export earnings and 80% of revenue. Niger Delta had a population of 31 million by 2003 and in the 1960s was food reliant but today it imports more than it produces. In spite of the high revenues the oil industry generates in Nigeria, the Niger Delta communities continue to live in social deprivation, abject poverty, and in constant conflicts between various tribes, organized illegal groups, and the companies exploiting oil in the region. The quality of life is very low compared to major oil-producing nations as a recent UN report indicated. Problems of armed conflict, epidemic diseases, and failed governance make the nation fragile according to World Bank (Omofonmwan and Odia 2009).

Environmental degradation in the Niger delta is huge and wanton and has continued for over three decades. This has left grave health, social and economic consequences for the people in this delta. Every stage of oil exploration and exploitation brings with it environmental damages with the major one being oil spillage. In the 40 years since oil was discovered, 6000 spillages have been recorded. 647 incidences of spillages in the period between 1976 and 1996 were experienced resulting in 2,369,407.04 barrels of crude oil being spilled and only 549,060.38 being recovered and the rest left in the ecosystem (Legborsi 2007).

Victimization

An environmental victim is described by Carrabine, Cox, Lee, Plummer and South (2009) as those of past, present, or future generations who are injured as a consequence of change to the chemical, physical, microbiological, or psychological environment, brought about by deliberate or reckless individual or collective human act of omission. This, therefore, means that victims welfare and rights are forgone for the benefit of a more powerful entity.

Victims

Local fishermen

Fishermen are victims of the pollution the delta is experiencing. The crayfish and sardine fish populations have declined. In Finima village, a small inlet that acted as a fishing community has been converted into an oil storage ground where huge domes stand now and a superstructure for storing liquefied natural gas. This has left local people with no economic base. Further, constructions on the bay and increased ship traffic have changed local wave patterns, resulting in erosion of the shore and pushing the fish into deep water. This would require a 55-hose power engine to fish which is unaffordable to the locals. Oil spills, which are the greatest negative consequence of oil exploitation in the region have destroyed aquatic life in traditional fishing grounds resulting in hunger and poverty in fishing communities (Anup 2004).

Local communities

Local communities means of livelihood, that is fishing, which provided income and food, has been destroyed by leaks from pipelines and wells into streams and rivers. The building of roads and canals drove the wetland ecosystem into collapse according to UNEP. They are left to import frozen fish for local consumption something they never experienced before the discovery of oil (ONeill 2007).

Health effects from the degradation of the environment are another thing communities have to contend with in the Niger Delta. An investigation by the Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team found out that discomfort and misery as a result of fumes, heat and combustion gases are common. Certain illnesses such as bronchial asthma, gastroenteritis, cancer, skin problems, eye diseases, and other respiratory diseases have risen in occurrence due to exposure to pollutants. Also, research by the University of Lagos on the water quality in the region indicates that 70% of it contains a concentration of 0.5 to 4ug per liter above the WHO recommended concentration of 0.7ug/1 of a cancerous chemical Benzo O Pyrene. Aquatic creatures also were found to contain the chemical and others in high concentrations which end up in the mans system as they consume them. Nutritional problems are also widespread which are associated with poor diet as cropland becomes infertile and poverty increases (Anup 2004).

The communities are also losing on traditional institutions of authority and social harmony. Oil pollution has also seen the emergence of individualism among the community members whose customs and traditions and social values dictate should live in a communal spirit. Elders are supposed to protect the community during times of distress such as oil spillage and be the custodians of community wealth. Elders and some community members have developed a relationship with oil companies which have seen them benefit at the expense of the community thus alienating them. This is seen mostly during times of oil spillages and fires (The third world Traveler).

Insecurity as a result of armed conflict in the region is another thing the Niger communities have had to endure. With the deteriorating living conditions in the Niger Delta and the failure of government to act and multinationals to fulfill their promises, some groups have taken the matter into their hands. Armed rebel groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) have attacked oil platforms, oil stations operated by oil companies. They also kill security guards and soldiers and kidnapped foreign oil workers. They have also set bombs in cars in protest and burst oil pipes to try and get a portion of oil monies. This has made the region a dangerous place forcing people to move to towns and other states (The Third World Traveler).

Local farmers

The Niger Delta is enormously endowed with natural resources and weather that supports agricultural production. 50% of the labor force is involved in various agricultural activities and crops such as yam, cassava, cocoyam, plantain, maize and vegetables are the main crops. Production is on a small scale and subsistence basis. This has however been greatly affected by oil spills which have left their land degraded to wastelands due to loss in soil fertility and destruction of soil microorganisms. Farmers have been compelled to abandon their land and seek alternatives like employment in the oil industry or move to other areas which stress resources in those areas further (Inoni, Omotor and Adun 2006). Another damage to cropland is acid rain as a result of gas flaring which has poisoned the soil leaving it infertile and unable to support any crops.

Offenders

Oil companies

These are subsidiaries of major oil companies in the world. The major ones include Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Agip from Italy, ExxonMobil and Chevron from the US among other smaller ones. These have transformed the remote Delta into an industrial wilderness. There are 4500 miles of pipelines, 159 oil fields and 275 flow stations. These companies have exploited the resources of the delta without any due consideration to the environment and the people. Environmental standards have not been adhered to as it is shown in the oil spillages, waste disposal and gas flares. They have also failed to meet the promises of developing the economic and social infrastructure such as roads, hospitals, employment, schools and others made to the Delta communities. Oil companies such as Shell and Chevron have also been involved in funding military activity in the region in the guise of protecting their interests. They have paid gangs and police to attack villagers demonstrating peacefully where people have been killed and property destroyed example is the Umeuchem demonstration of 1990. A case that attracted much attention is that of trial and execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmental activist, and eight other leaders of the Movement for Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP). The trial and execution were done in haste and with no substantial evidence and Shell was indicated to have had a hand in it (Inoni, Omotor and Adun 2006, Beirne and South 2007).

Government of Nigeria

The Government of Nigeria declared the oil industry in the country as state-owned in 1971. This resulted in a joint venture with the oil companies through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation where it owns 55-60 percent of multinational oil business onshore. The revenues from this venture have increased over the years to 60 billion in 2005. The country has moved from colonialism since the discovery of oil to military dictatorship to democracy. What has not changed is the culture of misuse and looting of national resources by those who are in power according to the International Crisis Group report. The Anticorruption Agency in Nigeria estimated that 70 percent, that is, approximately 14 billion dollars of income from oil was misappropriated in 2003 by government officials. Theoretically, there is a mechanism for distributing the revenues to reach the people at the grassroots by dividing half of it to all 36 states and the central government retaining the rest. The revenues do not trickle down to the people as it is misused by military and other public officials who stash the money in foreign bank accounts and send their children to expensive schools abroad (Inoni, Omotor and Adun 2006, The Third World Traveler).

The government has also exercised laxity in the enforcement of environmental standards in the Delta. Cases of government officials receiving hefty bribes from oil companies in order to pass friendly policies and turn a bride eye on others have been widely publicized (ONeill 2007).

Conclusion

Green criminology means environmental harms and crimes done against the environment whether physical, social, economic, biological or cultural that have the potential of affecting the present and future generations. Pollution in the Niger Delta as a result of oil exploration and exploitation is one such crime. The major victims of this crime are farmers and fishermen as their means of livelihood are destroyed by pollution, local communities as their health, customs, traditions and social values are affected. Insecurity is another problem the local communities have to endure as tensions rise as a result of resources conflicts. The major offenders are the oil companies who recklessly pollute the environment by oil spillages, gas flares and waste. They also disregard environmental standards and conduct business with no consideration of the environment or the people around them. The government on the other hand has misused the revenues from the oil resources and failed to enforce environmental standards. It has also failed to protect its people from abuse by multinationals as they engage in military activities.

References

Anup, S., (2004) Global Issues. Nigeria and oil. Web.

Beirne, P., and South, N. (2007) Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting harms against environment, humanity and other animals, Willan Publishers.

Carrabine, E., Cox, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., and South, N. (2009) Criminology: a sociological introduction (2^nd ed) Oxford. Chapter 19. pp 385-396. Web.

Inoni, E., Omotor, G., and Adun, N. (2006) The effects of Oil spillage on crop yield and farm income in Delta State, Nigeria, Journal of Central European Agriculture Online. Vol. 7 (1), Web.

Legborsi, Saro. The adverse effects of oil pollution on the environment and the wellbeing of a local indigenous community: The experience of the Ogoni people of Nigeria. International expert group meeting on indigenous peoples and protection of the environment. Khabarovsk, Russian Federation 2007. Policy paper. United Nations Division of Social Policy and Development: New York. Web.

Lynch, M., (1990) The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective in the 1990s, Criminologist,2, pp. 1-5. Available in South, N. and Beirne, P. (2006) Green Criminology, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Mc Laughlin, E., and Muncie, J. (2006) Sage dictionary of criminology, SAGE.

OBrien, M., and Yar, M. (2008) Criminology: the key concepts, Taylor & Francis.

ONeill, T., (2007) Curse of the black gold: Hope and betrayal on the Niger Delta. National Geographic Magazine online. Web.

Omofonmwan, S., & and Odia, L., (2009) Oil exploitation and conflict in the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology Online. 26 (1), Web.

The third world Traveler (2005) Assassins in foreign lands: A CorpWatch Radio Interview ith Nigerian Human Rights Activist Oronto Douglas. Web.

White, R. (2008) Crimes against Nature: Environmental criminology and ecological justice, Willan Publishers.

Social process theories argue that criminal behavior in individuals develops as a function of psychological encounters, interactions, and individual socialization. All these encounters are related to the various institutions that include; the family, school, the general community, and societal processes. Socialization is the process by which an individual’s code of conduct is shaped to conform or encounter the cultural standards put in place. The agents of socialization involved in this process include; family, school, media, peers, and authorities like employers. When the socialization process is positive, the individual becomes law-abiding.

To have an effective understanding of the criminological theories it is important to first understand the meaning of criminology in general. In the traditional definition, criminology is basically concentrated on the review of crime as a social phenomenon; in comprehending the causes to better prevent it. The other concern is that the prevention of crime; is based on using the regulations that are used in defining crime itself, its development, and impacts on individuals.

The most appealing social process theory is that of Neutralization by David Matza and Gresham Sykes. This theory operates on the basic rationale that individuals make decisions that maximize their rewards while reducing their costs; through justifying the wrong decisions and criminal activities they take part in. This theory holds that delinquent individuals don’t embrace unconventional values, but rather hold values layered on the conventional ones. This simply means that they grow knowing that crimes like stealing are wrong, but avoid the feelings of guilt and shame by constructing rationalizations for the criminal behavior. This rationalization is built-in social relationships and is used to justify their potential guilt before they violate the law. However, the rationalizations fall into different typical patterns; which are also referred to as the techniques of neutralization.

The first one is commonly used by offenders especially young ones; arguing that the act was really not their choice, but they did it out of peer pressure, drunkard ness, drug influence, poverty, or a combination of a few of these factors. Therefore the justification is that these circumstances thus forced them to commit a crime. The second justification is that the act did not harm anyone directly, and therefore there are no victims. An example is stealing a motorcar from an insured store; where the justification is that they were just borrowing the car; as they would have been paid or recovered it. The other justification is the denial of the victim by arguing that they did really deserve the crime committed against them because they implicatively asked for it. Condemnation of the condemners; which is common in crimes like corruption where the argument is, the police break the law; the rich got their wealth through corrupt means, and that the judiciary system is corrupt. The offenders also plea to higher loyalties to argue that different loyalties like the clergy are more important to moral observance than others.

However, these justifications are fashioned in groups; are transmitted from older to younger generations, and form a part of differential association. The major strength of this theory is that it is supported by other theories like the Sutherlands theory; strain theory that emphasizes that criminal behavior is learned; the classical school theory that argues that committing crimes lies solely on the choice of the individual; and the emphasis that crime is a product of social factors.

Reference

Kornhauser, R. (1978) Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Introduction

Survey research is the most widely used data collection method in the fields of criminal justice and criminology as it assists researchers and professionals to gather the information that is unique to individuals, such as attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, expectations, and behaviors (Kleck, Tark, & Bellows, 2006). Although survey research uses several data collection methods, this paper focuses on the questionnaire to answer several questions related to the technique.

Responses to the Questions

The survey was administered using group-based, self-completed questionnaires targeting groups of 30 students sampled from the high schools (Pope, Lovell, & Brandl, 2000). The survey was cross-sectional in design, as information was collected from the students at a single period in time through the use of self-completed questionnaires (Maxfield & Babbie, 2014). Overall, this was the best method based on ease of administration, capacity to achieve a high response rate and design of the questionnaire (choice of responses were limited to fixed categories).

The questions on parental attachment and supervision, delinquent peer and heavy metal preference, and delinquency were closed-ended as they utilized several Lickert-type scales to record responses. No question appears to have utilized the open-ended format. Although the Lickert Scale is the most universal method for survey collection based on its success as an effective ordinal psychometric measurement of attitudes, beliefs and opinions (Croasmun & Ostrom, 2011), it is felt that more choices should have been offered in the Lickert scales to provide participants with a broader scope of responses. Most 3-point Lickert-type scales used in the survey may have limited the capacity of participants to respond more objectively.

The instrument is likely to have several types of validity, including

1. content validity to assess whether the questions cover the full range of issues under investigation,
2. face validity to ensure that the questions included in the questionnaire have a logical link to the main objective of the study,
3. predictive validity to ensure that the tests and scales used in the questionnaire are able to predict future behaviors of participants, and
4. construct validity to evaluate the extent to which the Lickert-type scales used in the questionnaire accurately measure the association between delinquency and heavy metal music (Maxfield & Babbie, 2014).

The questions concerning parental attachment and control are effective as they are able to measure the various constructs associated with the issue of parental control and attachment, such as supervision, trust, and identification. The high Cronbach alpha scores show that the questions are reliable based on their internal consistency (Maxfield & Babbie, 2014). However, the categories for the Lickert-type scales used in the questions need to be expanded to give participants more opportunities to respond as objectively as possible.

Lastly, in my view, the questionnaire is best placed to elicit the responses needed to explore the relationship between heavy music metal music preference and delinquency. Unlike interviews which are time-consuming and difficult to administer, the use of questionnaires in this study provides researchers with an inexpensive way to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the participants with regard to the main variables of interest.

Conclusion

This paper has expounded on several aspects of survey research and the use of questionnaires to collect data from the field. Overall, it can be concluded that questionnaires are effective when the survey is concerned with collecting the attitudes, beliefs, values, and expectations held by a segment of the society toward a particular criminal justice or criminology issue such as delinquency.

References

Croasmun, J.T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Lickert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19-22.

Kleck, G., Tark, J., & Bellows, J.J. (2006). What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(2), 147-152.

Maxfield, M.G., & Babbie, E.R. (2014). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Pope, C., Lovell, R., & Brandl, S.G. (2000). Voices from the field: Readings in criminal justice research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Introduction

Criminology is the science designed for crime investigation which is carried out through understanding the personality of the criminal or the factors that can form such a personality. As defined by the famous American criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland in 1974, criminology is all about “delinquency and crime as social phenomena” (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 120). If social phenomena are considered, then naturally human beings become involved in criminological processes as subjects and objects of investigations.

Numerous scholars have developed their theories of criminology that is often based on various foundations but focus on the same point, i. e. the consideration of crime in all its manifestations as the socially conditioned and socially framed phenomenon. Accordingly, this paper considers three of the variety of criminological theories that view crime from the sociological and psychological perspectives.

Rosenfeld & Messner; Merton; Durkheim

The first theory under consideration is the so-called Institutional Anomie theory, also referred to as the American Dream theory, coined by Rosenfeld and Messner. The interesting point about this theory is its lineage, as Rosenfeld and Messner integrated and modified the sociological views of such prominent scholars as Durkheim and Merton. In more detail, the original theory of the three is Durkheim’s sociology of anomie, which argues that the roots of crime can be observed in institutional deregulation that results in the society’s inability to provide people with firm and strong values (Bernburg, 2002, p. 729; Durkheim, 1982, p. 118).

Merton bases his theory on Durkheim’s views but modifies them to argue about the presence of the societal standards and means of creating values, but the lack of norms, i. e. the so-called “normlessness” of the society as an institution that leads to the appearance of crime (Merton, 1938, p. 673).

Being a result of Durkheim’s and Merton’s theories’ integration, the Institutional Anomie theory by Rosenfeld and Messner argues about the dominance of goals over the ways of their achievement and claims the American Dream to develop the cult of achievement in people without any considerable attention to the morality and reasonableness of the means of their achievement (Bernburg, 2002, pp. 731 – 732). Thus, Rosenfeld and Messner consider the large-scale social factors of crime appearance and explain the phenomena of crime and criminalization by their theory.

Accordingly, Rosenfeld and Messner’s theory derived from the sociological views by Durkheim and further Merton can be used for the analysis of the myth that mental illness causes crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 1.2). Thus, according to Bohm and Walker (2006), there is a myth in society that the bulk of the violent and dangerous criminals are mentally ill and that mental illness can be viewed as a crime-provoking factor. However, using Rosenfeld and Messner’s Institutional Anomie theory this myth can be easily shattered as the disintegration of the whole society, not the particular mental illness is viewed by reputable scholars as the major crime developing factor. It is the sociological lineage of Durkheim – Merton – Rosenfeld and Messner’s theory that allows making such comprehensive conclusions.

Akers; Cloward & Ohlin; Sutherland & Mead

Nevertheless, there is a theory in criminology that considers the role of the social and psychological peculiarities of every particular person in the process of forming criminal behavior. This theory is currently known as Akers’ Social Learning Theory, but its roots go deep into the views of such prominent scholars as Sutherland, Mead, Cloward, and Ohlin (Skoll, 2009, p. 197). The roots of this theory can be traced back to the 1940s when Edwin Suttherland formulated the operant conditioning theory according to which no person has criminal behavior inherent in his/her personality, but learns the patterns of such behaviors from observing and simulating the socially displayed behaviors (Skoll, 2009, pp. 198 – 199).

The next influence on the theory by Akers is the theory of Self by Mead, who argued that the human personality is formed in the process of social interaction and social learning (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 138). Respectively, crime and criminal behaviors, among other behavioral patterns, also develop in people as the result of learning from social examples. The further development of this criminalization theory was given in the work by Cloward and Ohlin, who formulated the “success” theory in 1963. The essence of this theory lies in the integration of Sutherland’s and Mead’s views on social learning and self-formation with some of the above discussed Merton’s ideas of social deregulation (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 140; Simmel and Wolf, 1950, p. 422).

“Illegitimate opportunity structures”, i. e. crimes are viewed as the core of the problem by Cloward and Ohlin, who argue that the most widely spread reason from crime is the inability of a person to achieve success legitimately and favorable social environment that encourages criminal behaviors through three major elements – criminal, conflict, and retreats sub-cultures (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 140; Skoll, 2009, p. 199).

As a result, Akers integrates all the above theories in his social learning theory that emphasized the concept of behavior learning reinforcement as the major factor that increases the strengths of the learned crime behavioral patterns (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 142). Akers’ theory is thus explaining the process of criminalization and can be used to shatter the myth about drug use as the major driver of violent crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 1.6). According to Akers’ theory, social learning, institutional deregulation, and the culture facilitating the development of crime behaviors are the major crime-forming factors, not drug use.

Chambliss; Rusche & Kirchheimer; Mead

Finally, the conflict theory by Chambliss can serve as the logical summary of the social disintegration, anomie, and social learning theories discussed above. Formulated by Chambliss in the 1970s, this theory combines and develops the ideas of the above discussed “Self” theory by Mead and the theory of punishment and social structure designed by Rusche and Kirchheimer (Skoll, 2009, p. 195). The original foundation of Chambliss’ theory is the theory of “Self” formulated by Mead, according to which the personality is formed in the processes of social interaction and reinforcement of socially adopted behavioral patterns (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 138).

Further on, the conflict theory displays a considerable connection to the punishment and social structure theory designed by Rusche and Kirchheimer. The authors of this theory argue that punishment is the reflection of the social structure of a certain epoch but not the means of fighting crime in society. Exemplifying their ideas with specific historical facts and references to Foucault and Marx, Rusche and Kirchheimer argue that punishment becomes more severe when the society experiences unemployment and excessive labor force amounts, while imprisonment becomes the best way to provide the state with a cheap labor force in time of labor shortages (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 153).

Drawing from both Mead’s and Rusche and Kirchheimer’s theories, the idea by Chambliss is all about the conflict as the manifestation of the permanently continuing process of social change. Chambliss views society as the instrument of oppression of the powerless classes by the powerful ones. Conflict, according to Chambliss, is the natural reaction to oppression, while crime is the result of conflict caused by social inequality and oppression. Punishment is also viewed as an oppression tool rather than an effective crime-fighting instrument (Libet, Freeman, Sutherland, 2000, p. 155; Skoll, 2009, p. 197). Therefore, Chambliss’ theory considers the process of policy/administration and shatters the myth that punishment reduces crime (Bohm and Walker, 2006, Section 4.21), as according to Mead, Rusche and Kirchheimer, and Chambliss, punishment is the tool of oppression rather than an effective instrument of keeping social peace and fighting crime.

Conclusions

To conclude, numerous criminology theories view delinquency and crime as social phenomena and consider them from the point of view of sociology. The institutional anomie theory formulated by Durkheim, Merton, Rossenfeld, and Messner, the social learning theory by Sutherland and Mead, Cloward and Ohlin, and Akers, and the conflict and punishment theory by Mead, Rusche, and Kirchheimer, and Chambliss illustrate vividly how crime is the result of the social influence and oppression rather than any particular minor factors like drug use or mental illnesses. Punishment is also viewed as a social oppression tool rather than a crime-fighting method.

Works Cited

Bernburg, Jon. “Anomie, Social Change, and Crime.” British Journal of Criminology 42 (2002): 729 – 742.

Bohm, Robert and Jeffery Walker. Demystifying Crime and Criminal Justice. Roxbury Pub., 2006. Print.

Durkheim, Emile and George Simpson (Translator). The Division of Labour in Society. OUP, 1933. Print.

Durkheim, Emile. Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press, 1982. Print.

Libet, Benjamin, Anthony Freeman, and Keith Sutherland. The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will. Imprint Academic, 2000. Print.

Merton, Robert. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3.5 (1938): 672 – 682. Print.

Simmel, Georg and Kurt Wolff (Translator, Editor). The Sociology of Georg Simmel: Metropolis of Mental Life. Free Press, 1950. Print.

Skoll, Geoffrey. Contemporary Criminology and Criminal Justice Theory: Evaluating Justice Systems in Capitalist Societies. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.

Among criminological concepts explaining the nature of people’s unlawful actions, the social disorganization theory occupies a significant place. According to Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox (2017), this term describes the emergence of crime as a logical factor, which is manifested in those communities that are unstable or disorganized. Behavioral aspects are the main criteria that determine the essence of this concept.

As Lynch and Boggess (2016) note, “social disorganization impedes the formation of common goals among residents,” and this reason prevents them from controlling their actions (p. 19). As a result, people commit crimes based on personal bias, beliefs, and aggression.

When considering the application of this theory to the current situation, it finds its manifestation in some scandalous criminal cases. As an example, a resonance incident that occurred in New York a few days ago may be cited. According to Pager (2019), the police arrested a 37-year-old transgender African American woman who attacked people with her pepper spray. The author of the article notes that the main motive for the aggression was the racist views of the accused who deliberately chose white citizens (Pager, 2019).

While evaluating this crime from a theoretical point of view, using the aforementioned social disorganization theory may be justified. Barkan and Rocque (2018) argue that racism is one of the most common causes of crime on American streets. Class and social inequalities lead to bitterness and deviant behavior, which is manifested in aggression towards one another. Some people do not have clear life goals and priorities, preferring to criticize others and demonstrate their dissatisfaction with both passive and active methods. Therefore, the theory in question may be applicable to this case.

References

Barkan, S. E., & Rocque, M. (2018). Socioeconomic status and racism as fundamental causes of street criminality. Critical Criminology, 26(2), 211-231.

Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2017). Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lynch, M. J., & Boggess, L. N. (2016). A radical grounding for social disorganization theory: A political economic investigation of the causes of poverty, inequality and crime in urban areas. Radical Criminology, (6), 11-69.

Pager, T. (2019). She said she hated white people. Then she attacked with pepper spray. The New York Times. Web.

Control theories represent one of the sociological explanations for delinquent behavior. Travis Hirschi is a popular control theorist who presented a social control theory; Edward Ross, Walter Reckless, and Jackson Toby are other contributors to its development (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2017; Alvarez, 2018). The main idea of the theory is that social bonds are the most significant factors that can prevent individuals from engaging in unlawful activities. To understand the main claims of Hirshi’s work, it is necessary to analyze the concept of social control in detail.

The main components of the theory are commitment, attachment, involvement, and belief (Smith, 2017). The first factor is related to an individual’s desire to achieve conventional, law-abiding goals and willingness to adhere to social expectations.

The theory claims that acceptance of social norms can prevent individuals from committing crimes. The study by Cretacci, Rivera, Gao, and Zheng (2018) supports this argument and shows that commitment can constrain delinquency. Involvement refers to people’s participation in activities related to their goals. Cretacci et al. (2018) report, however, that not all types of involvement can prevent a person from engaging in unlawful activities.

The attachment factor is associated with individuals’ bonds with their families, partners, and peers, which eliminates their desire to offend against the law. Cretacci et al. (2018) add that parental attachment may be the most influential. Finally, belief refers to a person’s attitude towards the rules of society. The more individuals agree with the fairness of existing norms, the less likely they are to commit a crime (Cretacci et al., 2018). It is possible to say that this factor exclusively cannot have a significant impact on a person; there should be a combination of several components. In summary, the social control theory presents a reliable explanation for delinquent behavior.

References

Alvarez, C. (2018). Testing social bond theory on Hispanic youth. Web.

Cretacci, M. A., Rivera, C., Gao, Y., & Zheng, L. (2018). Bonding to Bamboo: A social control explanation of Chinese crime. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 13(1), 122.

Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2017). Criminological theory: Past to present: Essential readings (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Smith, M. (2017). Prison programming and recidivism as a method of social bond theory: A meta-analysis of research from 2000-2015. Web.

Brazil is one of the developing countries located in South America. In this country, the criminal justice system is characterized by the application of universal and abstract laws based on the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Political and social development of the region prevents Brazil, and other countries of the region, from fast and effective growth of judicial institutions and new reforms in this sphere. Even though a juridical interpretation of the law admits a range of possible resolutions, the criteria which characterize judicial proceedings limit the space in which actors in conflict may negotiate and exchange political costs and benefits (Maxfield and Babbie 2008). This does not mean that the effects of these proceedings are neutral, for a law generates differential costs among diverse social groups (Adler et al 2003). Still, laws reorganize the form of conflict resolution, redefining the cost/benefit matrix determining the probability that each of the diverse social groups involved will realize their interests. Even though a law does not have a particular or concrete beneficiary — that is, even though it does not constitute a selective threat-it can establish the magnitude and universality of the costs that will confront those who decide to violate it.

In Brazil, federal and provincial courts are the main institutions of judicial system. To evaluate the effects of the judicial treatment of human rights violations on the democratic process, it is necessary to consider whether, in spite of the covert amnesty of the due obedience law passed during the last decade and the presidential pardons of the new administration, the existence of legal sanctions in Brazil is still sufficiently strong to redefine for the military the costs of deserting the democratic game (Louis et al 2008). Critics believe that the best way to determine whether a pardon has neutralized the deterrent effects of punishment or weakened a society’s confidence in the ethical foundations of its government is to look at the conditions under which it was granted, as well as its political meaning at the time. Beyond the ethical and political problems involved in pardoning anyone guilty of human rights violations, we acknowledge the possibility that pardons may serve a useful function at some stage in the transition to democracy. In the first stage, the appeal to judicial means allows for a redefinition of the costs to be incurred in case the military should return to authoritarian practices (Branco, 2006).

The main types of courts are federal courts and common courts. No doubt, courts that serve the law before the political needs of the executive can become sources of tension in processes characterized by unstable position. In this sense, politicians are right to be attentive to the risks entailed by autonomous judiciaries (Poelzl, 2007). Yet, while there is nothing wrong with being careful about these risks, the politicians’ error is to assume that the problem lies with the judiciary per se when, in fact, the challenge is one of getting used to democracy as a regime of governance and conflict resolution. Common justice is administered by: first instance, Court of Justice and Superior Court of Justice (Gaines and Miller 2008). The main courts in Brazil are Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and Superior Military Court (STM). But at a later stage, a pardon may neutralize the risks involved in the prolonged political isolation of the armed forces. However, in order for this second effect to take place, it is necessary to judge and punish in the first stage. When democratic politicians face the challenge of having to deal with human rights violators that still legally bear arms, they tend to perceive in the autonomy of the judiciary a source of potential danger (Levine, 1999).

To prioritize the achievement of any outcome over the stability of legal rules and over the freedom of action of the judiciary would be to act against the democratic nature of the regime. Hence, if democracy is a regime where all citizens are equal before the law, as a general rule all those responsible for human rights violations should be taken to trial and punished, and all those democratically committed to the collective welfare of the society should be willing to face the risks entailed by the rule of law. It is difficult to imagine a process of democratic consolidation in which politicians and citizens are not willing to face the risk of an autonomous judiciary (Maxfield and Babbie 2008). Brazil has ended up in a middle-of-the-road situation. Without a doubt, the trial, conviction, and seven years imprisonment of former military presidents and commanders in chief constitute an exceptional and key element in the country’s process of democratic consolidation. Without an autonomous judiciary willing to defy the political strategies of the presidency, as well as without political parties and human rights organizations willing to face the risk of the rule of law, military subordination to constitutional rule would probably not have come about. But on the other hand, Brazil’s presidential pardons have also obstructed the cause of imposing punishment for past abuses. Similarly, the due obedience law constitutes a de facto amnesty that violates the right to justice of the victims and their relatives. In short, the Brazil dilemma is not only about past human rights violations but also about present ones. In a nutshell, the story is not merely about how a democracy deals with the past but about the extent to which it is able to defend and realize the rights of its citizens at the beginning of the 21^st century (Levine, 1999).

Police structure in Brazil reflects traditional and universally accepted standards in police departments. In Brazil, the democratic record in much of the world has been either weak or simply bad when it comes to judging the crimes of the guardians. All too often, political scientists and politicians have argued that in order to guard the guardians, we need to avoid the risks that are associated with judging their crimes. But in spite of the shortcomings we have observed in this essay, exceptions like Brazil should be considered a challenge to false dualisms between political efficiency and ethics (Poelzl, 2007). The Supreme Court chose not to review decisions of the wartime military courts, and until well into the 1990s, appellate courts invariably rejected writs of habeas corpus that were presented on behalf of political detainees. Despite clear rules to the contrary, the courts also tended to act on these habeas corpus writs only after months had gone by. Even in cases when judges inquired about the fate of detainees, they generally honored explanations given by political authorities as the truth without further investigation. There were no orders to bring those arrested into the courts; and for a long time, judges neglected even to visit detention sites (Manwaring, 2007). The main types of the civil police forces are the Federal Police, the Federal Highway Police and the Federal Railway Police. The Military Police is organized into (1) Battalions; (2) Companies; (3) Platoons and (4) Detachments.

In spite of the legal authorities’ weak responses Brazilian human rights groups continued to present cases to the courts throughout the dictatorship, both as writs of habeas corpus and as criminal actions. These initiatives were part of a concerted strategy by activists and victims to document instances of abuse, to force the authorities to recognize arrests, and to use all means, whether effective or not, to advance the cause of human rights. At this point, civilians are beginning to play a more important role in government, and those who had fought for an open market and a liberalized economy were trying hard to bring about some liberalization in the political arena. Their aim is to “institutionalize” the regime in order to guarantee the survival of the socioeconomic order after the end of military government and to ensure that it would no longer be dependent upon repression.

Bibliography

Adler, F., Mueller, G., Laufer, W. S. 2003, Criminology and the Criminal Justice System. McGraw-Hill Companies; 5th edition.

Branco, S. 2006, Brazil – Culture Smart!: the essential guide to customs & culture. Kuperard; Reprinted edition edition.

Gaines, L. K., Miller, R. L. 2008, Criminal Justice in Action: The Core. Wadsworth Publishing; 5 edition.

Levine, R. M. 1999, The Brazil Reader: History, Culture, Politics (The Latin America Readers). Duke University Press.

Louis, R. S., Raub, K. Clark, G. and John Noble. 2008, Brazil (Country Guide). Lonely Planet; 7 edition.

Maxfield, M. G., Babbie, E. R. 2008, Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Wadsworth Publishing; 2 edition.

Manwaring, M. A. 2007, Contemporary Challenge to State Sovereignty: Gangs and Other Illicit Transnational Criminal Organizations in CA, Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil. CreateSpace.

Poelzl, V. 2007, Culture Shock! Brazil: A Survival Guide to Customs and Etiquette (Culture Shock! Guides). Marshall Cavendish Corporation.

Introduction

What makes an individual commit a crime? How best can one understand crime happening in society? Well, the study of criminology enables an individual to evaluate and, in the process, understand the criminal activities while putting into consideration the process of committing those crimes and how to control them within the constraints of the society. Moreover, the study of criminology helps one understand the ways to react to these crimes.

Crime causation

Having completed the majority of my course work in criminology, my perspective on crime causation has evolved greatly. Prior to the completion of my course, I based my arguments and understanding of the early theories drafted by the ancient criminologists, who maintained that there are people who were born criminals while others were not. Currently, I believe that those ancient beliefs are incorrect and baseless.

Furthermore, I have been enlightened in the fact that individuals are not born criminals; thus, one cannot judge a criminal by merely looking at them. Most importantly, the criminologists of today have produced more advanced and detailed theories depicting why people commit crimes. It is evident that presently, there are different types of criminals who indulge in diverse criminal activities; as a result, it is impossible to describe them under one theory.

Hence, they are explained under the multiple theories that have been formulated. Theories such as classical, positivist, individual trait, social disorganization, and many more permit the criminal justice system to classify criminals accordingly. When formulating these theories, I have noticed that the criminologists had the intention of bringing out a better understanding of why certain crimes happen and modes of preventing them. As a matter of fact, my course work has positively and intellectually changed my perspective on crime causation (Kroneberg, Heintze, & Mehlkop 260).

Reasons for committing crimes

It is worth noticing that my course work has changed my basic outlook on the reason why people commit crimes, as I now understand the true intellectual facts about this concept. It is evident that the rate of criminal cases in the United States is increasing each day. As a result, it has been noted that this problem cannot be fixed easily. Consequently, when people experience criminal activities, they usually consult the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

For example, when one is a victim of crime in New York City, it is advisable to seek help from the New York attorneys. The main purpose of an attorney is to assist the victim in dealing with the proceedings in court and other essential legal concepts concerning the crime. Most importantly, crime affects society greatly, and from my criminology course work, I have learned that people get involved in criminal activities for various reasons (Kroneberg et al. 278).

In my course work, I noted that one of the causes of crimes is poor parenting, whereby when children are neglected by their parents, they seem to get involved in crimes in their adulthood. Additionally, poor parenting might involve sexual harassment of the children. As a result, children might develop into sexual predators when they become adults. Moreover, from my course, I managed to realize that peer influence is also a significant reason for one to commit a crime. For example, in schools, students who perform poorly in class might give up on academics and enter into criminal activities.

Consequently, they believe that joining criminal gangs will give them the status and respect they never achieved while in class. Additionally, students from poor backgrounds will also indulge in crime as a way of supplementing what they do not have. This is because they have a notion that when they join criminal gangs, they will achieve material gains so easily (Kubrin, Messner, Deane, McKeever, and Stucky 61).

My course work also enabled me to realize that drugs and substance abuse are also reasons why people commit a crime. It is noteworthy that when an individual is under the influence of drugs and other substances like alcohol, they are most likely to be involved in criminal activities. This is because, under the influence of such substances, an individual might not make the right decisions. Furthermore, those individuals who are addicted to crimes tend to participate in crimes as a way of justifying their criminal activities. It is also essential to note that those individuals under the influence of drugs and other substances are always vulnerable to criminal activities.

The most demining factor is that most crimes in the U.S involve the use of handguns. These handguns are either procured through the black market or stolen. Thus, the easy accessibility of these weapons is also an issue that brings about the occurrence of crime in society (Kubrin et al. 66).

In the research articles that I came across during my course work, I discovered that most of the criminals have a poor educational background. Thus, they are facing poverty and unemployment conditions. Hence, they opt to indulge in criminal activities so as to acquire basic needs. The research also affirmed that even those who are employed do indulge in crimes. This is because the incomes they get from their jobs are not sufficient to cater to their everyday requirements. As a matter of fact, the exposure of children to TV violence is also a reason that makes an individual get involved in criminal activities.

This is because children will tend to emulate what they see on TV. It is also noted biologically by the crime scientists that hot weather results in criminal activities. This is because warm temperatures activate aggression hormones called testosterone and epinephrine. As a result, during hot weather, there are more criminal cases than during cold weather (Kubrin et al. 66).

Criminological theories

The criminological theories that best explain my understanding of crime causation and crime, in general, include the classical theory. This theory was formulated by Beccaria, and it explains that whenever the benefits of crime exceed its costs, crime is most likely to occur. Additionally, it affirms that crimes take place when individuals are seeking self-satisfaction, and at the same time, there is no efficient castigation for the existing offenders.

For example, highway robber might continue to indulge in their crimes in case the police on patrol are not in a position to arrest them. Another criminological theory that I can use to describe my understanding of crime causation is the social disorganization theory. It is evident that this theory was formulated by four theorists who were Shaw Sampson, McKay Sampson, Bursik, and Gasmask.

It affirms that criminal cultures are most likely to emerge in disorganized communities because of the absence of social control, for example, in learning institutions where there is no emphasis on the good discipline of the students as a result of wrangles at the administration level. The students might take that advantage and engage in criminal activities as there will be no one to stop them. The other theory that best explains my understanding of crime causation is the strain theory. It is evident that this theory was formulated by two researchers, namely Cohen Cloward and Ohlin Agnew.

It divulges that in society, whenever individuals fail to meet their goals, there is a likelihood of them responding to this strain by indulging in criminal activities. For example, in normal circumstances, an individual might be striving to own a car. In circumstances where the individual things he cannot afford this car, however much they try, they might result in a robbery so as to earn more money to quickly acquire this car. Thus, his motivation towards the robbery is the urge to accomplish a set goal (Kroneberg et al. 672).

There are a number of theoretical arguments I will use to clarify my perspective to someone holding a different opinion to mine. First of all, with consideration to the classical theory, it is worth noting that human beings are best controlled when strict rules and regulations are put in place. As a matter of fact, when such regulations are not well enforced to the extent that the offenders can go scot-free, it will encourage more people to indulge in crimes.

This is because they will gain more in criminal activities and, at the same time, escape punishment. Similarly, in societies where the laws that govern against crimes are not strict, criminal activity will be encouraged. For example, in communities where those involved in crimes are given lesser sentences in court, the rate of crime will be high as criminals will realize they have more gains than the loss in their activities (Kroneberg et al. 677).

When considering the social disorganization theory, it is essential to note that in any society, there must be order and understanding for people to stay in peace. In societies where there is a lack of organization, criminals are bound to take advantage of the situation to rain havoc on the people. As a result, the motivation factor in such a society is the inadequate social framework to dictate the ways of living. In strain theory, criminals indulge in such activities because they want to achieve a certain goal or status in society. This comes about when the efforts they are putting to enable them to achieve the goal seem not enough.

As a result, they will tend to indulge in crime so as to boost their efforts. This, for example, can be experienced in leadership positions. Whereby, in case an individual wants to occupy a certain leadership position being occupied by another individual, he might end up plotting the murder of the current holder of the position in case he continuously defeats him in the elections (Krubin et al. 2010, p, 79).

Conclusion

Throughout my course work, I have realized that the study of criminology enlightens the student on their previous perception of different concepts concerning the art of crime. These concepts include the reasons why people commit a crime and the different theoretical explanations on the causes of crime. It is worth noting that crime pertains to various actions and the best way to understand it is by using the current criminology theories. Undertaking my course in criminology has enabled me to understand the measures to put in place for purposes of reducing and avoiding crime in society. Furthermore, I have learned how to react to different criminal activities.

Works Cited

Kroneberg, Clemens. Heintze, Isolde & Mehlkop, Guido. “The Interplay of Moral Norms and Instrumental Incentives in Crime Causation.” Criminology 48 (2010): 259–294. Print.

Kubrin, Charis. Messner, Steven. Deane, Glenn. McKeever, Kelly and Stucky, Thomas “Proactive Policing and Robbery Rates across U.S. Cities.” Criminology 48 (2010): 57–97. Print.

Why arson evidence is packaged in metal cans

Forensic investigation into fires is conducted right after the fire brigade has extinguished the fire and the scene has been declared safe for entry. Fires can fall under various categories natural, undetermined, deliberate, or accidental. Deliberate fires, are also referred to as arson and are of the greatest significance to the investigator (Saferstein, 2010). The FBI (Federal Bureau of investigation) has defined arson as, “Any willful or malicious burning to attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc” (Reid, 2011). The first stage of an investigation involves finding the cause of the fire and its origin. During the collection of evidence from an arson scene, the evidence is packaged in airtight metal cans (Reid, 2011).

One of the reasons for this is that some of the evidence collected may still be hot. If they are placed in other containers such as plastic or envelope, they might burn the containers and render crucial evidence irrelevant. The melting point of metal cans is high and, therefore, there will ensure there is no spillage if the forensic investigator collects a sample of flammable liquid from the scene. Metal cans are also important in the collection of arson evidence because they do not contaminate the evidence collected. The airtight lid on the metal container will help in preventing further oxidation of the sample as this can destroy evidence (Saferstein, 2010).

The differences between high and low explosives

There are two types of explosives: the high explosives and the low explosive. The high explosives are also referred to as detonating while the low explosives are also known as burning mixtures. The main difference that exists between detonation and burning is that in burning the mixture will burn at a very fast rate and will need to be ignited to produce an explosion. On the other hand, detonation occurs instantly and does not need to be lit to produce an explosion. Chemically, the difference between the two is the proximity of oxidizing and reducing compounds. Detonating mixtures require little external energy to break them apart and cause an explosion. Unlike the burning mixture, they contain molecular bonds that require little energy to break. This is a result of having the oxygen very close to the reducing agent in the detonating mixture and therefore can easily be used. In the low explosives, the bonds are very strong and require a lot of energy to break them. This makes them require external sources of energy to produce an explosion (Siege & Houck, 2010).

High explosives do not need to be confined so that they can explode as is the case with low explosives. High explosives require just a small force to explode that is offered by a detonator or a blasting cap. Low explodes require a lot of force to explode, which is provided by the fire where it is ignited. Both explosives have also different explosion velocities. The high explosives are known to have shattering power, while the low explosives are known for their heaving power (Siege & Houck, 2010).

The high explosives undergo a chemical reaction through the explosive material at very fast speeds, which are higher than that of sound through the same substance. The speed in the low explosives is generally lower than that of sound through the same substance (Siege & Houck, 2010).

References

Reid, S. T. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell.

Saferstein, R. (2010). Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Siege, J. A. & Houck, M. M. (2010). Fundamentals of Forensic Science. Burlington, MA : Academic Press.