It is important to note that traumatic experiences in one’s past can lead to reactions, which can be highly disruptive and unpredictable. Such reactions include violence and crime, which puts not only the life of a traumatized person at risk but also other people affected by the crime of violence.
Regardless of one’s conditions, including severe trauma, violence and crime are justifiable reactions. Both violence and crime bring damage to other innocent individuals, which means that one’s traumatic reaction is hurting society. It is stated that among incarcerated women, “the majority of the sample (70.8 %) reported using illicit drugs, and 59.6 % had committed at least one violent offense. History of drug use was significantly correlated with trauma, PTSD status, and violent offending” (Howard et al., 2016, p. 21). In other words, all of these women have high rates of some form of traumatic past, which led to crime and subsequent incarceration. The judicial system does not allow one’s past trauma to justify crime and violence. Among male prisoners, “incarcerated offenders are more likely to experience Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and associated symptoms than the general population. PTSD may develop from a variety of events, including being a victim of violence, witnessing violence, or from committing a violent offense.” (Ternes et al., 2019, p. 68). In other words, these men are imprisoned primarily due to their criminal actions, and they tend to have some form of traumatic past. However, crime or violence does not justify one’s trauma, which is indicated by the prevalence of trauma among prisoners of both genders.
In conclusion, trauma was highly common among incarcerated individuals, and they were imprisoned due to their crimes, some of which included violence.
Psychoactive substances are known to affect behavior. Different substances have a range of various possible effects on different people. The same substance can affect different people differently (Abadinsky, 2014, p. 28). Moreover, in two separate cases, the same person may be affected differently by the same drug. However, a lot of efforts have been made to define general effects of drug use on behavior, particularly criminal and violent behavior. Studies show that drug use, in fact, is connected to crime and violence, but exploring this connection is complicated.
The correlation between drug use and crime has been the subject of numerous researches within recent decades. Various studies of drug use among criminals as well as of crime among drug users were aimed at defining causal links between the two things. As a result, most researchers agree nowadays that there is no clear cause-and-effect correlation and that the “question of whether crime is a pre-drug-use or post-drug-use phenomenon is actually an oversimplification” (Abadinsky, 2014, p. 11). However, drug use or addiction can shape inclinations to crime. Goldstein (1985) points out three types of drug-use effects on criminal behavior: pharmacological (crimes under the influence of intoxication), economic-compulsive (crimes for obtaining money for drugs), and lifestyle (criminal behavior induced by the environment of drug users).
A particular issue in this area is whether or not drug use promotes violence. Based on a literature review and own experience of being a parole officer, Abadinsky (2014) asserts that drug users and addicts are more disposed to commit violent acts. It is also noted that the drug distribution subculture is “permeated with extreme levels of violence” (Abadinsky, 2014, p. 12). Although different psychoactive substances have different effects on people in terms of inducing aggression, many street drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and PCP, have been confirmed to cause violence. Also, according to Abadinsky (2014), alcohol is a factor in approximately 40 percent of violent crimes in the United States.
However, even if drug use is chemically proven and sociologically observed to stimulate aggression, there is still the challenge of attributing particular violent acts to intoxication. Studies show that, in many cases, criminals consumed alcohol or cocaine to gain courage and disinhibition to commit crimes that they had planned before (Abadinsky, 2014), which might or might not mean that they would have committed those crimes even without the influence of intoxication. The impossibility to state conclusively that drug use leads to violence suggests the necessity of a different approach. Abadinsky (2014) proposes that, instead of attempting to define the impact of drug use on crime or crime on drug use, researchers should focus on the impact of environmental and biological variables on drug use and crime.
An important aspect of the relationship between drug use and crime is that people who have illegal drugs in their possession are technically criminals already. The criminalization of drug use creates environments that predispose these people to disregard the law in general, increasing the risk for drug users to commit other crimes, including violent ones. Besides, the effect of intoxication in many cases is an increased level of aggression. However, I think it is very important that researches in the area of drug use and crime recognize that there are other social and psychological factors that drive the same people into addiction, and into violence. I believe that this recognition is particularly significant for the study of drug use.
Drug Use Effects on the Central Nervous System
The Central Nervous System (CNS) of humans consists of the brain and the spinal cord. The brain contains 10 billion to 50 billion neurons, i.e. cells that exchange information in the form of signals. This is where everything about the way our bodies function is controlled and regulated. The control and regulation are exercised through releasing particular chemicals that launch and govern various processes in our organisms. Some of these processes are responsible for our mood, desires, motivation, determination, etc. Psychoactive substances are able to intervene in those processes, altering the ways a person feels and acts. To understand this alteration, it is necessary to explore how these processes work and how they are affected by drug use, which will provide evidence for the discussion of legality or illegality of particular drugs.
One of the most important survival mechanisms in humans is that actions aimed at staying alive or reproducing are rewarded. The so-called reward circuit in our CNS generates pleasure when we fulfill surviving functions like assuaging our hunger or quenching our thirst. The pleasure we thus gain teaches us to repeat such actions. The communication within the reward system is performed through neurotransmitters, a specific kind of chemicals, one of which, dopamine, participates in shaping our mood and motivation. The release of dopamine makes one feel good and accomplished. The lack of dopamine causes depression and unwillingness to do anything (Abadinsky, 2014). Dopamine is important for the proper functioning of an organism as a whole.
Although various psychoactive substances may have many different psychological and physiological effects on humans, the common feature is that these substances intervene in the reward circuit. They imitate neurotransmitters to overstimulate the reward system, thus gaining pleasure and satisfaction for the drug user (Abadinsky, 2014). There are two main consequences. First, a compulsion develops to take the drug again. The reason is that the initial meaning of rewarding is teaching to repeat actions. Second, the overstimulation of pleasure centers disrupts their normal functioning. When a person gets addicted, the natural release of dopamine decreases as it is replaced by the effects of drug use. Therefore, when the person stops taking the drug, they are likely to experience depression.
There is an ongoing debate on which psychoactive substances should be legal and which should not, based on their effects on the organism. In many countries, the possession and sale of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and LSD are crimes, while alcohol and nicotine are sold without any or with significantly lesser restrictions. Abadinsky (2014) stresses that, although the laws may distinguish between legal and illegal drugs, “biology recognizes no such distinction” (p. 3). Kleinman (1992) points out that, in terms of addiction and overdose risks, alcohol and nicotine are as much of drugs as heroin and cocaine. The legality of drugs is thus a discussion that goes beyond physiological considerations.
Drug use disturbs the natural processes of gaining pleasure in human organisms. It causes addiction and, when the consumption is discontinued, withdrawal. Drug use creates a kind of artificial happiness, which makes a person miserable when the drug influence is over. I believe that this knowledge is important and should be spread so that more people who use drugs understand what those drugs do to them. I do not think that banning some psychoactive substances altogether, while imposing no restrictions on other ones, is a smart policy. The debate on drugs should go on, involving governments and societies, as well as taking into consideration the scientific knowledge.
References
Abadinsky, H. (2014). Drug Use and Abuse: A Comprehensive Introduction, 8th Edition. Web.
Goldstein, P. J. (1985). The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 15(4), 493-506.
Kleinman, M. A. (1992). Against excess: Drug policy for results. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sex offenders are considered to be “the lowest of the law” and the outcasts of society (Griffin & West, 2006, p. 167). However, this opinion is imposed by law enforcement, mass media, and politicians. All of these make people believe that sex offender are hopeless and unimprovable since they can not live without one more committed crime. Is it the truth or only a popular belief?
The society view of sex offenders
The majority thinks that sex offenders exist separately from any other criminals, as well as a sex offense is a unique kind of crime. Many people even equate sex offenses to sex disorders. Besides, the community believes that the recidivism rates for sex crimes are the highest, although this opinion is based on nothing. Finally, every released sex offender has to register himself and let the community know about his presence. Nevertheless, there is no other type of criminal, including murderers, who are obliged to do the same.
As a result, according to different studies, after release sex offenders, as well as their close friends and members of the families, are often exposed to violence (Griffin & West, 2006).
The recidivism rates for sex crimes
There are several studies, according to which the recidivism rates for sexual assaults is not lower than 80%. However, all of them are unfounded and based on vague beliefs and opinions. As reported by Griffin and West (2004), 1994 research revealed that more than 45% of released sex criminals were re-arrested during the following three years. However, not all of those arrests were because of sex assaults. For example, only 2.5% of all arrested committed rape.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003), research showed that only 5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime within three years after the release. Moreover, non-sex offenders have much higher recidivism rates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).
Finally, the number of different sex offenses decreased by 65% in 2004 in comparison to 1994. So, the statistics are, in fact, promising.
Types of treatment and their effectiveness
The best way to reduce the number of repeated sex offenses is to provide sexual deviants with appropriate treatment. According to Griffin and West (2006), there are several methods of therapy: physical, non-behavioral, and behavioral. From my point of view, one of the most effective is psychopharmacological treatment, which is a part of a physical one. It requires an offender to take medications, usually hormones, that can decrease their sexual desire. I consider this method as the most effective since sex offenders usually commit crimes because of sex addiction. The behavioral approach is also helpful because it examines criminals’ cognitive distortions. The weakest method of treatment is non-behavioral (group therapy and so on).
It is hard to determine who is responsible for the community view of sex offenders: mass media, for example, or the community itself. It seems that we have a chicken and egg situation here because mass media affect society, no more than society affects them. The reality shows that recidivism rates for sex crimes are the ones of the lowest. So, the best thing to do is to adequately examine the problem and provide sex offenders with an appropriate treatment.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). 5 persent of sex offenders rearrested for another sex crime within 3 years of prison release. Web.
Griffin, M. P., & West, D. A. (2006). The lowest of the low? Addressing the disparity between community view, public policy, and treatment effectiveness for sex offenders. Law and Psychology Review, 30, 143-169.
The sex assaults issue raises numerous discussions and contradictions. Michael Griffin and Desiree West presented a unique reflection on this problem in their article “The Lowest of the Low? Addressing the disparity between Community View, Public Policy, and Treatment Effectiveness for Sex Offenders”, published in Law & Psychology Review in 2006. The article draws attention to the current problems in the perception of sex offenders by the community.
The authors’ view of sex offender prevention techniques
The authors regard the effectiveness of treatments of sexual offenders as “a topic of debate” (Griffin & West, 2006, p. 149). They demonstrate the invalidity of physical treatment methods and the non-behavioral approach. It appears that the authors find the behavioral approach to treatment the most appropriate one. The article presents numerous proofs of the positive effects of this method, including Quinn’s statements, results of the examination conducted by Hanson and his colleagues, the research made by Barrett, Wilson, and Long, and the position of Supreme Court. The importance of the continuance of sex offender treatment is emphasized through the notion of a decrease in offenders’ motivation after the end of treatment (Griffin & West, 2006, p.152).
Sex offender’s profile
The article doesn’t state what should be included in a profile for sex offenders. It rather demonstrates the impossibility of creating the profile, which would make it possible to identify, treat, and supervise sex offenders. The inefficiency of such a profile is caused by the absence of strong similarity between distinctive features of sex offenders. The authors provide an overview of theories of sex offender behavior and question the myths about the typical qualities. By presenting this information, the authors show that it is very difficult to differentiate certain peculiarities, typical for all sex offenders, and create an appropriate profile. My point of view is quite similar. In my opinion, the nature of sex crimes is extremely complicated and not fully investigated. That makes singling out of the features, common among all people convicting such crimes, nearly impossible.
The disparity between community view, public policy, and treatment effectiveness for sex offenders
It appears to me, that the disparity between community view, public policy, and treatment effectiveness for sex offenders is caused by low public awareness of the results of studies. The community’s view on sex offenders is heavily influenced by stereotypes and myths. Public policy is based on the position of the community. Wrong beliefs in society lead to making inappropriate decisions on higher levels. Such failures result in the inability of society to create a proper environment that can help sex offenders to overcome their psychological problems and deviations. Thus, society cannot ensure its safety because of its own mistakes.
Effective prevention of sex offenders from committing crimes
The authors of the article offer long-termed treatment for sex offenders as an effective way of preventing further crimes. They also emphasize the importance of the improvement of sex offenders’ acceptance in society and confronting those who spread wrong information (Griffin & West, 2006, p. 168). The main advantage of the article is its persuasiveness, as it is full of valuable data and examples. The authors used logical reasoning and managed to make the article very informative and convincing. However, the abundance of research data can be considered a disadvantage, as it makes the text difficult for reading.
It goes without saying that the development of methods, that can prevent sex offenders from committing crimes, should be based on the objective analysis of the previously gained results. Our society has very little information about the things that provoke deviant behavior (Hudson, Law, & Ward, 2000, p. 515). The relapse prevention model, created by Richard Law, proved to be effective and should be extended and modified for its higher productivity (Hudson et al., 2000, p. 516). In my opinion, only a scientific approach to the modernization of methods of prevention is suitable.
Conclusion
The nature of sex crimes is complicated and difficult to investigate. Griffin and West’s article attracts attention to the problems concerning community view and treatment of sex offenders. In that way, it promotes society’s awareness of the existing problems connected with the issueThe sex assaults issue raises numerous discussions and contradictions. Michael Griffin and Desiree West presented a unique reflection on this problem in their article “The Lowest of the Low? Addressing the disparity between Community View, Public Policy, and Treatment Effectiveness for Sex Offenders”, published in Law & Psychology Review in 2006. The article draws attention to the current problems in the perception of sex offenders by the community.
References
Griffin, M. P., & West, D. A. (2006). The Lowest of the Low? Addressing the disparity between Community View, Public Policy, and Treatment Effectiveness for Sex Offenders. Law & Psychology Review, 30, 143-169.
Hudson, S. M., Laws, R. D., & Ward. T. (2000). Remaking Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders: A Sourcebook. New York, USA: SAGE Publications.
People living with disabilities (PLWD) are regular targets and victims of violence initiated by their non-disabled peers. Disability hate crimes (DHC) constitute criminal offences involving hostilities against PLWD, which often stem from prejudices and preconceived notions that individuals hold against that impairment. Generally, it is viewed as an extreme genre of ableism or disablism, which encompass the discriminatory, abusive, and oppressive behaviour and treatment emanating from the conviction that PLWD is inferior or subhuman. The phenomenon of DHC can adopt multiple forms, including verbal abuses, intimidatory behaviour, vandalism, and even murder. However, abuses and harassment constitute the most prevalent category of DHC. Although numerous policies and legislation have been enacted to prevent the commission of these bias-motivated crimes, they have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the emotional and physical harm experienced by the victims.
The Scale and Scope of DHC in England and Wales
DHC are criminal offences comprising two fundamental components, including an outright violation of the law and an identifiable bias motivation stemming from socially constructed prejudices and stereotypes against persons living with impairments. They include such specific acts as harassment, intimidation, and abuses perpetrated onto the victim due to the preconceived notions of vulnerability as a symptom of the target’s health condition or impairment. An estimated 19% of the population in England and Wales is disabled, and the scale and scope of DHC are grossly underreported since over half of all the incidences go unreported (Sakellariou and Rotarou, 2017). A survey conducted in 2016 established that 73% of individuals living with learning challenges and autism had been victims of at least one hate crime (Healy, 2019). Another study by the National Crime Survey indicated that the true figures of DHC in 2018/19 reached 70,000 (How often are disability hate crimes committed? n.d.). In the previous 2016-17 year, police recorded 5,558 DHC incidences (Hall, 2018b). These statistics illustrate that a substantial proportion of the England and Wales population lives with some form of disability and are subjected to prejudicial treatment.
Further, the figures from various surveys demonstrate that DHC is a prevalent social problem that is grossly underreported. The significance of these biased actions of violence is capture by the official statistics of sexual offences, assault, harassment, stalking, fraud cases, and discriminatory practices targeting the most vulnerable individuals in the society. For instance, the United Response (2018) posit that sexual crimes and targeted fraudulent activities rose by 100% and 1, 050%, respectively. Sakellarious and Rotarou (2017) and Hackett et al. (2020) noted that discriminatory practices, especially within healthcare, are widespread, limiting PLWD’s ability to access medical services. In extreme instances, murders have been reported, such as the atrocious attack and targeted violence against Steven Hoskin in Cornwall and Brent Martin in Sunderland. The most affected regions reporting numerous incidences and biggest spiked in DHC incidences were Humberside, West Yorkshire, and Gloucestershire.
The reported statistics demonstrated the severity of DHC in England and Wales as a major social problem, with far-reaching implications extending beyond the victims. They highlight the compounding factor of the incidences, which significantly contribute to the escalation in severity and frequency of cases, thereby necessitating greater attention and prioritization. Notably, there is a general consensus that the level of reported DHC is much lower than the actual incidences, preventing the law enforcement agencies from making informed, data-driven decisions regarding effective resourcing.
Types of Crimes Committed
PLWD in England and Wales experience a wide array of DHC, which capitalize on their vulnerability. These hostilities are mainly in the form of verbal attacks, harassments, sexual violence, fraud, discriminatory practices, and fraud. Also, physical assaults, stalking, malicious communication, and in extreme instances, murders have been perpetrated against PLWD. Generally, there has a consistent and steady rise in the number of DHC incidences reported over the years, although the provided figures are greatly understated.
Importance of Understanding DHC and Prejudice
A comprehensive understanding of DHC is imperative and forms the foundation for responsive strategies and interventions to combat and reduce the vice. Notably, these offences target the most vulnerable members of society are currently misunderstood, widely hidden, and underreported. Moreover, these hate and bias-motivated crimes have severe and far-reaching impacts that transcend the targeted victims’ emotional and physical wellbeing. Generally, there lacks an established framework or working structures to help law enforcement agencies effectively address this challenge. For instance, there is a deficiency in the consistency of approaches and definitions, which police utilize to combat prejudicial violence against PLWD. Targeted violence motivated by prejudicial biases against PLWD potentially reinforce exclusion, isolation, and marginalization of disempowered individuals, damaging community relationships (Hall, 2018b). This is attributed to the fact that this cluster of offences intimidates the casualties, forcing them to live in fear, further aggravating the quality of their lives. In this regard, an in-depth understanding of DHC is an indispensable and critical pillar in designing and developing appropriate and practical responses to protect these susceptible members of society from harm and exploitation.
Theories of DHC and Prejudice
Given the centrality and significance of DHC, various theories have been advanced to explain, help in the understanding, and the subsequent development of appropriate and responsive interventions. Prejudice encompasses the set of negative beliefs, perceptions, judgments, and attitudes towards a category of individuals due to their specific traits or characteristics and forms the basis of their maltreatment. Some of the theories attempt to explain social bias against PLWD power/culture perspective, cultural-based approaches, and personality-centred dimension. These can be further categorized as sociological, criminological, and socio-psychological theories.
Personality-Centred Theories
Although contextual and environmental factors are critical in obtaining an in-depth understanding of prejudices against PLWD, person-centred perspectives also play a key role in determining how an individual treats others. This implies that such personal attributes as agreeableness, openness, psychopathy, narcissism, and neuroticism impact peoples’ overall prejudicial attitudes (Koehn, Jonason, and Davis, 2019). The personality-oriented approaches encompass multiple approaches, such as the scapegoat hypothesis, which explains prejudgment biases as an attribute of a person’s avenue of dealing with frustration through aggression. Consequently, people substitute such targets and redirect their anger to other easy, less threatening recipients. Chen and Carl (2017) corroborate this perspective, and personality is a powerful moderator for orientations and actions undertaken by a person. From this perspective, the distinct personality traits of an individual play an influential role in predisposing them to prejudicial behaviours.
Additionally, an authoritarian character increases a person’s predisposition and tendency to engage in prejudicial and stereotypical thinking. From a psychoanalytic perspective, the defining personality of an individual influence their general tendencies. For instance, authoritarian attributes are characterized by remarkable propensity and penchant for social dominance and categorizing people into “us” and “them” while seeing their class as socially superior. As a result, these people are highly sensitive and inclined to totalitarian ideas, thereby expanding their proneness to prejudicial behaviours. According to Lin and Alvarez (2020), personality shapes the ideological, attitudinal, and social traits, including the orientation to hate people based on their appearances. A study involving over 5,000 participants in the United States demonstrated a robust association between authoritarian characters and anti-black prejudice (Lin and Alvarez, 2020). From this perspective, a person’s distinct characters influence their likelihood of developing negatively biased perceptions and the subsequent mistreatment of people they deem socially inferior.
The applicability of personality-centred approaches as theoretical explanations of prejudicial and stereotypical is limited by their simplicity and the lack of robust scientific underpinning. For instance, the development of the authoritarian personality theory was heavily dependent on self-reported questionnaires whose questions were framed to encourage individuals to respond positively. This implies that the theory’s statistical supremacy was significantly eroded by the reporting and structure biases in the questionnaires. However, the personality-centred perspective sufficiently explains most irrational versions of prejudice, including the dislike for people without firsthand reason as the basis for the bias, such as previous interaction or engagement. Moreover, the absence of consistent findings erodes the acceptability of this theoretical model as a foundation for explaining prejudice.
Culture-Based Theories
Culture-based theoretical models of prejudice indicate that people learn prejudicial tendencies in the same they acquire other aspects of the society in which they live. According to Fiske (2017), cultural context is a major determiner and enforcer of specific customs, beliefs, and traditions of a particular community. For instance, some cultures normalize and entrench the preconceptions of specific members of society. Once the perception that some minority group are inferior is created, social mechanisms are initiated to perpetuate and advance that notion. This perspective is corroborated by Baldwin (2017), who contend that prejudice thrives within a social context where it is culturally tolerated and accepted. In this regard, negatively biased perceptions have a strong cultural component, and the subsequent continuity is an outcome of socialization. However, the cultural explanations for prejudice suffer several setbacks, including the misconception that all people in a given society have similar levels of prejudice and that there are no neutral recipients of culture. Moreover, people learn multiple norms from society, including the values of justice and fairness. As a result, individuals have the discretion and power to choose which attitude or behaviour to exercise.
Power/Culture Theories
Power culture theories emphasize the ideology that prejudicial behaviours and tendencies stem from intergroup competitions. The resultant conflict serves as the rationalization for the perpetration of exploitation and stratification. These theories further indicate that the elites develop, control, and shape the dominant ideology supported by the other members of society. This implies that individuals at higher social echelons mobilize opposition and perpetuate prejudicial narratives against a specific class of individuals as a means of self-preservation. The applicability of these theories is impeded by the existence of conflicting information, including the understanding that cultures, personalities, societies, and family structures are the greatest sources and enablers of prejudice.
Criminological, Socio-Psychological, and Sociological Theories
Criminological, sociological, and socio-psychological theories are emerging perspectives, which are increasingly gaining momentum. The former integrates a legal perspective regarding why people break the law, their criminal and deviant behaviours. The dimension illustrates that oppression, cruelty, and the perpetration of inhumane treatment is the direct outcome of criminal thoughts and propensity to violate the rights of people deemed inferior. Conversely, socio-psychological and sociological models highlight the integral role played by the environmental factors in reinforcing or reducing the acceptability of prejudice against PLWD.
Although the multiple theoretical models illuminate the potential causes of prejudice and the perpetration of DHC, the person-centred and cultural-based perspectives provide the most rational explanation for this category of crimes. However, no single premise adequately explains the cause and origin of prejudicial behaviours. This view implies that the commission of hate crimes is arguably an outcome of multiple factors. In this regard, an effective response strategy would need to adopt a multipronged approach, with specific provisions addressing each of the contributory components.
Policies to Address DHC and Support the Victims
England and Wales have formulated multiple policies and regulations to combat DHC and support the victims of prejudicial crime. Among the prominent strategies is the expansion of the scope and definition of what constitutes a hate crime. This includes elaborate training and outreach programs to sensitize and educate the public and relevant government agencies on how to recognize and report DHC. Notably, this policy framework seeks to primarily challenge the existing behaviours and attitudes, which foster hatred. It is inspired by the thinking that although bias-motivated crimes are endless, it is imperative to definitively identify and define what constitutes DHC. The strategy has been accompanied by the creation of specialized units in law enforcement and personnel training to enhance the officers’ responsive abilities.
Additionally, multiple hate crime legislation has been enacted to enhance punishments, support the effective operationalization of the existing policies, and institutionalize long-term educative deterrence. For instance, the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 has undergone a series of reforms designed to support easier reporting, expand the scope of the law, and reinforce the practical application of the law. Other provisions, Equality and Diversity, Domestic Abuse, and Harassment and Bullying Procedure, are covered by the Everyday Guide to Equality. Chakraborti (2017) notes that these interventions have been critical in reinforcing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, changing social attitudes and prejudicial behaviours, and dismantling the existing barriers for efficacious reporting. Supportive strategies include the Victim Support team and Stop Hate UK, which allows confidential reporting of hate crimes and the provision of a 24-hour helpline for the victims. Therefore, they have formed an important background against which meaningful engagement with diverse stakeholders, communities, and interested parties can contribute to better policy formulation.
Future Policy Outlook
Although the current policy framework attempts to combat the perpetuation of DHC, there is little effort channelled to address the root causes of the crime. For instance, the destruction of the cultural and social constructs which reinforce and enable these offences will require elaborate community-level interventions and the engagement of the locals. Additionally, the various statutory bodies, including the law enforcement agencies, have not deployed data-driven decisions to inform their response plans, resulting in poor outcomes for DHC mitigation. From this perspective, the future outlook of DHC needs to integrate statistical insights and scientific data to understand the scope, causes, and promising interventions comprehensively. Moreover, it will be imperative to adopt a multiagency response strategy instead of the current disintegrated and fragmented strategies.
Conclusion
Disability hate crimes are bias-motivated prejudicial offences targeting people living with disabilities. In England and Wales, this challenge is grossly underreported, resulting in the absence or inadequate interventions to combat the challenge. Overall, the contributing factors are multimodal, necessitating the formulation of policies which address the multiple aspects of the phenomenon. Although the existing policies have attempted to limit the perpetuation of these crimes, they lack the reinforcement of scientific data. In this regard, future policy interventions should adopt a multiagency approach and utilize data-driven decisions.
Reference List
Baldwin, J. (2017) ‘Culture, prejudice, racism, and discrimination’, Oxford Research Encyclopedias. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.164
Chakraborti, N. (2017) ‘Responding to hate crime: escalating problems, continued failings’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), pp. 387−404. doi: 10.1177/1748895817736096
Chen, P. G. and Palmer, C. L. (2017) ‘The prejudiced personality? Using the big five to predict susceptibility to stereotyping behaviour’, American Politics Research, 46(2), pp. 276−307. doi: 10.1177/1532673X17719720
Fiske, S. T. (2017) ‘Prejudices in cultural contexts: shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), pp. 791−799. doi: 10.1177/1745691617708204
Hackett, R., et al. (2020) ‘Disability discrimination and wellbeing in the United Kingdom: a prospective cohort study’, BMJ Open, 10(3), pp. 1−11. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035714
Hall, E. (2018b) ‘A critical geography of disability hate crime’, Area, 51(2), pp. 249−256. doi: 10.1111/area.12455
Healy, J. (2019) ‘It spreads like a creeping disease’: experiences of victims of disability hate crimes in austerity Britain’, Disability & Society, 35(2), pp. 176−200. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2019.1624151
Koehn, M., Jonason, P. and Davis, M. (2019) ‘A person-centred view of prejudice: the big five, dark triad, and prejudice’, Personality and Individual Differences, 139, pp. 313−316.
Lin, C. and Alvarez, R. M. (2020) ‘Personality traits are directly associated with anti-black prejudice in the United States’, PLOS ONE, 15(7), p. e0235436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235436
Sakellariou, D. and Rotarou, E., 2017. Access to healthcare for men and women with disabilities in the UK: secondary analysis of cross-sectional data. BMJ Open, 7(8), pp. 1−9. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016614
Hate crime refers to a criminal offense involving individuals or groups of offenders discriminating others based on their religion, race, sexual orientation, disability, gender, or ethnicity. Hate crime is prejudiced expressions which fail to involve threats, damage to property, or violence. Despite possessing this nature, the crime exposes the offenders to hefty penalties because they leave the victims vulnerable and victimized (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). Therefore, the discriminatorily motivated offense committed and targeted to an individual victimizes them and their immediate community and family; belonging is made vulnerable. Asian hate crime is a contemporary issue affecting many people in the United States, thus, it is important for legislatures and other relevant stakeholders to formulate strategies of addressing the problem to completely eradicate it.
Problem Analysis
The United States (U.S.) has witnessed a series of discriminatory motivated behavior linked to hate crime. In the past, hate crimes were not considered to be associated with discriminatory acts. The U.S. government was involved in perpetrating these vices directly through state violence on ethnic and racial minorities. Some historical U.S. hate crimes included slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, anti-Chinese violence, Ku Klux Klan criminal conduct, and lynching (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). The denial of victims’ legal redress by the government fueled hate crimes. There was a registered increase of hate crime against the Asian during the 9/11 bombing attack (Weiss, 2021). According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics, these hate crimes registered an increase of 59.6% in 2018 due to ethnicity, race, and ancestral discrimination (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). This posed a more significant threat to the Asian people living in the U.S as they became more vulnerable to attacks.
Hate crimes are considered serious forms of prejudice arising within political and social change leading to the devaluing groups being viewed as unfamiliar. New York City comprises 13.95% of Asians, who comprise students, immigrants, and tourists (Weiss, 2021). The occurrence of COVID-19 has witnessed an increase in hate crimes. The former U.S President Donald Trump referred to the virus as the ‘Chinese virus,’ which led to 1,100 reported incidents of hate crimes among the Asian persons living in the country (Man, 2020). The groups made vulnerable by the comment included Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, and South Asian communities. They were exposed to recurrent cycles of violence and harassment (Weiss, 2021). The recurrent problem of hate crimes needs to be considered since it not only discriminates against the victims but also tends to make them vulnerable to life-threatening attacks.
The motivation of hate crimes is associated with violent acts that expose victims to harm physically or mentally. The motivations are color, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and national origin (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). It is worth noting that groups of individuals commit hate crimes compared to other forms of criminal activities. Similarly, according to the National Victimization Survey statistics, the targeted victims lay in categories such as 15% were under 17 years; 17% were aged 18 to 29; and 43% surpassed 30 years of age (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). The upsurge in the number of hate crimes against Asians across the U.S during this COVID-19 pandemic period registered 2,100 incidents within 3-month, that is, between March and June of 2020 (Zhang et al., 2021). This surge has made the issue to be a matter of concern requiring appropriate actions to mitigate and eradicate the recurrent problem. Hate crimes eradication will further remove the elements of discrimination against those who deem to possess different attributes.
Solutions Criteria
There arises the need to avail a resounding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives to address the issue of hate crime in the country. Various legislatures have tried to seek the attention of the President of the U.S. towards addressing the issue. Anti-Asian hate crimes, according to the national security council, seemed to undermine the countries leadership and values on an international scope (Weiss, 2021). Therefore, the formulation of laws ensuring the safety of the Asian people living in the U.S. would guarantee them security against hate crimes.
Solution Brainstorming
A resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives would garner support from other interested parties. For instance, Meng’s answer received support from 50 professional and scientific bodies, which felt the plight of the Asian people (Weiss, 2021). Similarly, the formation of non-governmental organizations such as the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) provides an opportunity for the victims of hate crimes to make formal reports (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). The ability and platforms for making formal complaints make the victim’s comfort and confidence restored, pending the follow-up to his or her case.
Implementation
The resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives needs to condemn all forms of hate crimes against Asians and call out the federal law enforcers to partner with local and state officials investigating these instances. Representative Grace Meng has undertaken a similar move on March 25, 2020 (Weiss, 2021). In turn, the laxity exhibited by the U.S government towards redressing hate crimes issues against Asians will be an issue of the past (Man, 2020). These moves by the U.S House of Represent seek to establish a lasting solution to hate discriminating against Asians.
Furthermore, the support of activism groups would be essential in championing for the rights of the Asian people. These groups, such as AAPI, are critical for evaluating and determining whether a reported case is considered a hate crime or not. After evaluation, the categorized instances as hate crimes are forwarded for legal redress (Shattuck & Risse, 2021). The activist groups would in the frontline championing for the government to order when it has resorted to neglecting and perpetrating life-threatening violence against Asian persons (Man, 2020). Speaking up by these groups will aim at supporting reforms in the justice system, which the U.S government has neglected. Adherence to these criteria will avail a lasting solution by sealing loopholes in the legal justice system.
Conclusion
Hate crimes committed on Asians living in the U.S. have witnessed an upsurge in the past few months. This increase has been associated with the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges that people in the country have experienced as a result of it. Racial groups and incidents in the past are mainly responsible for the continuous cycles of Asian hate crimes. The recurrent nature of the crime, as well as its effects, calls for the need to adopt a working intervention. The measures included the presentation of resolutions to the U.S House of Representatives and the formation of a non-governmental organization. The application of these measures is essential to protect Asians and protect the interest of the U.S citizens. It is important to recall that the U.S. is a highly diversified country which needs to eradicate vices that compromise the unity of the people.
A ‘victimless crime’ is any activity that is illegal but does not involve physical harm or threatening of the right of another person and does not involve the destruction of property. It involves a situation whereby a person will act alone as well as a consensual act between two parties- there is usually no victim because the illegal activity is consensual -in which two or more people agree to commit a criminal offense without involving a third party, and as a result of that criminal offense there is no apparent victim or pain/injury. Examples of criminal activities which involve victimless crimes are prostitution and drug usage. Prostitution is regarded as a crime in many countries and this involves the act of offering sexual favors in exchange for money and this will involve both men and women. When two parties agree to commit prostitution consensually, neither party can be considered a victim. Another victimless crime is the usage or possession of illegal substances, it is known that a person who is under the influence of drugs can be involved in the destruction of properties, at the same time the person using drugs can damage his/her body through routine use and in this case the user or the possessor of drugs is the victim. “The laws which have been written to take possession of drug or its use is a crime have been largely been written and enforced by non-users, and in this case, the general public is arguable the ‘victimless criminal” (Schur 2006).
Substance Abuse
Drugs and alcohol abuse is rampant in the United State, there is the need to focus on a special group of people in which the use of illegal drugs magnifies other problems that affect the country in general. African-Americans have been associated with negative social and health consequences which are associated with the possession of illegal drugs and their use. When we compare African-America and whites in the United State, there is a trend in most African-Americans communities whereby there is an early onset of alcoholism and problems which are related to illegal drug use. “The victims of substance abuse have a greater likelihood of being channeled to criminal activities rather than seek treatment for their problems which has been caused by illegal drug uses” (Karnezis 2005).
The Bureau of statistics in the united state has shown that a higher percentage of African-Americans – 40 percent- compare to whites-14 percent- live in poverty and these statistics are found in the rural United States and if a family is headed by a single mother the rural poverty rate increases to 60 percent. In general, in the United State, the rate for the use of illicit substances, for example, nicotine is highest among American Indians and Hispanics but drug use was lowest among African Americans and Asian Americans.
In Canada, scientific findings done over two decades have shown that the use of illegal substances is one of the major factors that has contributed to the increase in criminal activities in that country. The victims who are addicted to expensive drugs like cocaine and heroin, these drug addicts will commit crimes for him/them to be able to afford this type of drug. The average age of victims in Canada who inject themselves with drugs is between 26 to 35 years but several teenagers below the age of 20 years inject themselves and this represents one in every five victims who use the illegal substance. There was a trend in those Canadians who inject themselves their level of education was low as you compare them to those Canadians who do not use drugs.
Children younger than 18 years of age are involved in prostitution in the United State and are invariably victims of sexual exploitation in that country. When we compare them to an adult they are more vulnerable in the sex sector, and they are victims of debt bondage, trafficking from other improvised countries which are found in the Asia continent. Commercial sexual exploitation in children is a form of violence against children and this has life-threatening consequences on those children who are being sexually exploited. “Majority of women and girls in the United State are accorded relatively low social status and this together with poverty makes this girl an easy target for sexual exploitation” (Brinkerhoff 2007).
Decriminalization of Prostitution
“The question is, should we legalize prostitution or not, there is no question about prostitution being morally wrong on the spiritual books i.e. the Bible for Christians and the Quran for Muslims” (Brinkerhoff 2007). In any country in the world, legislation is passed for many reasons, but its primary purpose is to protect the people in that country. Prostitution Research researched prostitution and their finding was that 92 percent of the women who are involved in prostitution wanted to leave prostitution. But they could not because they lack basic human needs like healthcare and food. The average age of girls who enter into prostitution is 14 years, nearly 60 percent of prostitutes are being raped during prostitution, and 60 percent of the girls who enter into prostitution have been forced against their own will, while others have been forced due to economic hardship. The person who is being harmed the most is the person’s wife who buys sex and we can say he is the primary criminal because he is the one who is doing the most damage to society. “Preponderance issues which are associated with prostitution are many, issues like rape, drug abuse, adultery, murder, divorce, etc due to these issues we need to legalize prostitution to prevent them from occurring” (Brinkerhoff 2007).
In another study conducted in San Francisco, it is believed that 62 percent of women working in massage parlors had been physically harmed at one time, and this was only half of the parlors that offer massage services, because those massage parlors which were controlled by pimps or sex traffickers, their percentage are higher for women to be victimized while in their line of work. When a country doesn’t decriminalize prostitution, it will increase the danger the women are undergoing while prostituting. There is evidence in any part of the world where prostitution has not been legalized; it has been a magnet for traffickers and the ‘john’s’. Making prostitution to be a criminal offense will be a legal welcome to traffickers and prostitution will increase dramatically become another purchase of a commodity, like bread. For example in New Zealand, it was noted an increase in organized crime in just a little over a year since prostitution was a criminal offense.
It is not the prostitute in the United State who is wholly responsible for the transmission of Sexual Transmitted Diseases (STDs). A study was conducted in 2008 by The Center for Disease Control and the shocking facts were that prostitutes were responsible for less than 3 percent of all the transmission in that country. The majority of sexually transmitted diseases were contributed by the students in high school and college-going students unless we were talking about the prostitutes who were injecting themselves with drugs-which accounts for about 15 percent of all the working prostitutes operating in the United State. Not forgetting those consenting adults who engage in sex with prostitutes, these people have been practicing safe sex, and using condoms for years has resulted in fewer and fewer cases of Sexually Transmitted Diseases STDs.
In Germany prostitutes are working in certain areas which have been designated by the government and the brothel owners may just be business owners like any other businessmen in Germany. The government takes 50 percent in the form of ‘sin taxes’ of the profit while owners of brothels and prostitutes share the remaining 50 percent. Every week these brothels are required to undergo health checks and the sex workers in these brothels are forced to undergo forced STI checks every Thursday. After the compulsory testing, the Sex worker is required to display her status on the wall in which he is doing her trade of prostitution. “It is a policy in Germany for sex workers to demand the people visiting the prostitute are required to wear a condom, and with all this, we have seen prevailing rate in STDs is low in countries like Germany” (Gomme 1998).
Don’t Decriminalize Prostitution
“It is not possible to protect a prostitute whose source of income exposes her to the likelihood of her being raped at least once in a week” this is according to feminist activist based in San Francisco, Melissa Farley in her book “Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress,” (2004). In her book she quotes a survivor of prostitution, “It is simply shameful and not possible to tell in words the intense pain and struggle I have undergone when I was a prostitute, I chose prostitution because I didn’t have any other option and it was because of emotional, financial and lack of family support that I engage in prostitution. It is completely erroneous to think there is no violence in the brothels that I had worked in, there was some incident, which customers intentionally remove protective (condoms) against my wishes, I now choose to be an advocate against prostitution because so many innocent lives are being lost due to prostitution”. With this in mind, it has been illustrated that those people who are involved in advocating for the legalization of prostitution are a small minority in a country. In an argument about prostitution, a person always refers to exclusively to physical harm: HIV/AIDs, physical assault, killings of prostitution. In her research, Melissa Farley has included women who were willing to assume the role of a prostitute, only to discover later the difficulties these women were undergoing in their trade. What we call it ‘victimless crime’, is not the case because there is no choice the way an ordinary person will think, simply there is no genuine consent between the parties, men usually have an upper hand, because the choice prostitute is assumed to be having is not there and prostitute has suffered physical abuse, rape, etc as result of that.
There is no difference between prostitution and rape, or incest, or battering. The difference is that in prostitution there is a money reward and this gain will make sexual exploitation to be invisible in prostitutes. Most of the damages the women who engage in prostitution are undergoing are not physical but it is psychological. Unfortunately, the thing will happen if the country legalizes prostitution rather than decriminalizing it, “what will happen is that the country will end up exchanging one exploitive system for an another-one set of bureaucrats in the form of the government bureaucrats” (Gomme 1998). The Sex worker is then required to display her grade A Disease-Free Meat certificate on the wall of her working room. “It is a policy in Germany for sex workers to demand the people visiting the prostitute are required to wear a condom, and with all this, we have seen prevailing rate in STDs is low in countries like Germany” (Gomme 1998).
Yes – Decriminalize Drugs
A well-thought-out policy on the use of drugs will lower gun crime, burglaries, and the prison population will decrease by 50 percent. Tax revenues as a result of drug use will increase in Britain, however, politicians in Britain would never dare suggest this to the lawmakers. The prohibition of drugs in Britain has failed in a way that the illegal drug trade is not controlled by the government but it’s being controlled by the violent criminal gangs. The current policy in Britain is driving more women into prostitution and has left crime for low-income addicts. If currently the use of illegal drugs was legalized the same way tobacco and alcohol are heavily taxed. The money realized from taxing drugs could be channeled into education and rehabilitation programs. “With drug traffickers out of the equation, the lawmakers would mean users could purchase from the joints where drugs had not been tainted with other harmful substances” (Farley 2007).
In 2001 Portugal abolished all the penalties that are associated with substance abuse, they argued that jail terms to the addict were driving the addict further underground and incarceration was more expensive than treatment of the addicts, “nowadays person found possessing small dosage of drugs are sent before a panel which consists of psychologist and legal adviser and appropriate treatment is instituted to the victim of the drug instead of jail term” (Farley 2007). When we compare Portugal’s case with those in other European countries and the United State where the number of drug use is rampant, Portugal has the lowest rate of lifetime drug use in people under the age of 18 years in the United State, the proportion is 12:39.9 percent. “The lifetime use of illegal substance use among the 7th to 9th grade fell from 19.1 percent to 10.6 percent, and the lifetime heroin use among the teens fell from 2.5 percent to 1.8 percent” (Karnezis 2005). In the United state, they have experienced problems with drugs overflowing from their neighboring country i.e. Mexico. The United state has been a champion of hard-line drug policy, imposing strict penalties on cocaine and marijuana use in the world. “While most of the countries in Europe with liberal substance use laws that than the United State has less drug use” (Karnezis 2005).
No-to Drug Decriminalize
The chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Joseph Califono believe decriminalization of illegal substance is not the answer nor is the legislation passed by lawmakers in the United State. The government needs to channel the available resources to combat abuse and addiction among the youth in any country. The problem when a country decriminalizes drugs is that the price for that substance will come down, and it will be easier to buy and more acceptable to use among the vulnerable members of the society i.e. the teens. An example is legislation that is found in Italy, Italy is believed to have one of the highest rates of heroin use in Europe, is because limited amounts of heroin do not bring criminal sanctions in the country. Sweden is another country in Europe to tighten its laws on drugs, substance abuse includes cocaine was rampant in that country in the early 90s. The government decided to tighten drug control and use, set up a national action plan against illegal substance use. In Sweden today the drug use is 70 percent below the average European usage. A county like the United States does not make substance use dangerous because it has been prohibited; “ rather an illegal drug becomes prohibited because it is harmful to the society, and liberalizing drug laws will increase drug uses in the youth and children” (Schur 2006).
Reference List
Brinkerhoff, D.B. (2007).Essentials of Sociology. New York: Cengage Learning Publisher.
Gomme, I.M. (1998). The shadow line: deviance and crime in Canada. Harcourt: Harcourt Brace Canada Publisher.
Farley, M. (2007). Prostitution, trafficking, and traumatic stress. New York: Routledge Publisher.
Karnezis, K.C. (2005). Victimless crimes. Iowa: University of Iowa Institute of Public Affairs Publisher.
Schur, E.M. (2006). Victimless crimes: two sides of a controversy. London: Prentice-Hall Publisher.
Violence and crime are often rooted in cultural beliefs and biases. These include the various types of discrimination, which are common even in the most advanced societies. First of all, gender-based violence is gaining more and more attention in the modern world. This type of violence is more typical for traditionally patriarchal countries, for example, eastern or developing countries. However, even in more prosperous states, the economic and social status of citizens is different, which can lead to violence against women. Gender-based crimes can include physiological, psychological, or sexual violence.
European Commission (n. d.) reports that in the European Union, 31% of women have experienced acts of physical violence, every 20 have been raped, and 43% suffered psychological violence. Apparently, the statistics even in developed countries are depressing, while in more patriarchal societies is even worse. For example, in Pakistan and China, there is a practice of honor killing, when a wife can be punished with death for wrong behavior (Hadi, 2017). Thus, the prevalence of gender-based violence and crime depends on cultural beliefs about men and women roles.
A special place in genetically motivated violence is occupied by crimes on the basis of bias related to sexual orientation. In many countries, especially the more conservative, cultural beliefs give rise to resentment towards members of sexual minorities. This situation leads to increased aggression and violence towards them. The problem may be motivated by the more frequent involvement of such groups in sex work (Blondeel et al., 2018). However, sexual orientation is often the cause of violence as well as systemic discrimination.
Racial and ethnic discrimination also often leads to violence and conflict situations. Such incidents are “motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race” (“Racial violence statistics,” n. d.). Racially motivated violence is the most common cause of hate crimes, which constitutes more than 57% in 2019 (“FBI Releases 2019 Hate Crime Statistics,” n. d.). It is also noteworthy that in the United States, a significant number of such incidents are directed against African Americans, as well as Hispanic and Latino populations (“Number of victims of race-based,” n. d.).
Thus, the correlation between persistent discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity becomes apparent, especially since it is supported by historical premises. Moreover, in recent years, more and more attention has been drawn to the police violence against Black and Hispanic citizens, which also indicates the possible presence of systemic discrimination, which makes the problem even more serious.
Religious bias can also be the cause of violence and crime, as the recent events in France have illustrated. Moreover, rejection of one religious belief group by another is a common reason for terrorist activity. Despite the fact that such incidents occur all over the world, the highest number is registered in “Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Bangladesh” (Muggah & Velshi, 2019). In these countries, bias is widespread in relation to various religious groups, which is also motivated by cultural beliefs.
Examination of cultural beliefs and biases helps to understand the causes of many episodes of violence, including systemic ones. Often its roots are in the tradition of a certain society, which makes it difficult to develop relevant measures to eliminate it. Moreover, hate crimes and bias incidents are extremely common in the modern world, which indicates a strong negative correlation between cultural beliefs and motivation for violence.
Social Roles
The most apparent social roles in relation to this violence are the victim and the criminal. Such relationships arise between the direct participants in the incident. In this case, public expectations make one sympathize with the victim and condemn the offender.
However, often the judicial system does not consider certain factors which could justify the convicted person (Boateng & Abess, 2017). Thus, these roles can be a source of stigmatization towards the participants in the incident. As noted with regard to gender-based violence, the roles of men and women can also result in violence. Social expectations in this case often justify domestic violence and sexual harassment, which exacerbate the problem. As with the roles of the victim and the criminal, these roles can be a source of stigma, making it challenging to address the issue. Considering roles in relation to crime and violence can help determine the motives of certain incidents, as well as identify patterns of perception in society.
Social Inequalities
Different types of inequality exist in different societies, leading to different social problems. In the case of violence and crime, economic inequality can play a dominant role. As Coccia (2018) notes, low socioeconomic status and high levels of stratification can be a source of stress and frustration, leading to anger and incidents of violence. First of all, this inequality can result in the need for people to make money and, as a consequence, crimes. However, often economically motivated episodes do not lead to violence per se. Disadvantaged communities are also characterized by an increased level of drug trafficking, which may be another reason for the crime.
Political inequality is most common in the least developed countries. However, its apparent example is also the police violence, which was mentioned above, which results in an uneven distribution of power resources between citizens and the state. The war on drugs, which occurred in the Philippines in 2016, is also a notable episode. The country’s president decided to fight drug trafficking in the country through the genocide of suspects, which led to thousands of victims (Johnson & Fernquest, 2018). Thus, political inequality can often be a motive for massive violence, especially when there is a lack of control and resistance. This discussion can help to understand better the mechanisms of occurrence of incidents and its social determinants.
Existing Conditions
Currently, there is a widespread discussion on how to improve the criminal justice system. As noted, it is often discriminated against and stigmatized, which exacerbates the situation with violence and crime. Currently, reforms should be directed more towards preventing crimes than punishing them. In this respect, an existing social problem can accelerate change by drawing public attention to episodes of unfair condemnation. Thus, the growing interest in the causes of violence and crime can have a positive effect on the transformation of the entire judicial system and the perception of incidents.
Undoubtedly, the growing concern regarding domestic violence and sexual harassment lead not only to more convicts but also to human rights initiatives. In particular, this applies to more patriarchal countries in which it is difficult to uproot traditional foundations. Gradually, the existing issue may lead to a revision of the legal norms on gender-based violence in the most disadvantaged countries. In developed societies, this process is already obvious, since recently there have been a significant number of scandals in connection to harassment and domestic violence.
Offenders frequently commit crimes for various reasons, and they also do it in various ways. Certain victimology concepts can be utilized to try to explain the reason why such crimes do occur. These theories can be used in an attempt to explain why such crimes do occur. By applying various models and theories to a number of these crimes and dissecting them, one might better understand what may have occurred when these crimes were committed. These criminological ideas are frequently utilized in discussions aimed at determining the most plausible explanation for why the crimes in question were committed in the first place.
Luster’s Early Life
Andrew Stuart Luster was born on the 15th of December in the year 1963 in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. A convicted sex offender and the heir to the cosmetics company Max Factor, he was found guilty of having sexual relations with a minor. Henry Luster, a psychiatrist, and Elizabeth Luster, the parents of Andrew Luster. His mother was Freda Factor, the daughter of Max Factor, Sr., and the adopted daughter of Freda’s biological father. He attended Windward School in Los Angeles during his formative years after having spent his formative years in Malibu, California. After graduating from college, Luster relocated to Mussel Shoals, California, where he supported himself by drawing income from a trust fund worth $1 million and maintaining a beach cottage valued at $600,000 (Chawkins, 2013). According to the Los Angeles Times, this move and Luster’s “freewheeling lifestyle” weakened his “already tenuous” ties to the Factor family, which was heavily involved in the arts and philanthropy (Chawkins, 2013). The Factor family was known for their support of charitable organizations.
Luster’s Alleged Crimes
In 2000, Luster was apprehended when a student at a nearby college reported to the authorities that she had been sexually assaulted at Luster’s residence. After conducting an investigation, the police charged Luster with drugging three women with the date-rape drug GHB, sexually assaulting them, and videotaping the assaults after discovering videotapes of the assaults when they searched his home (Chawkins, 2013). Luster was charged with all these crimes because police found videotapes of the assaults when they searched his home.
After posting a bail bond for one million dollars, Luster skipped his court date in January 2003 to defend himself against the charges. After failing to appear in court, Luster was found guilty and sentenced to 124 years in jail. Due to the wealth of Luster’s family, the court dispute they were involved in attracted much attention. In January 2003, the FBI filed a warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution against Luster. In June of 2003, the American bounty hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman tracked him down in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and took him into custody. Following their escape, Luster and Chapman were both taken into custody by Mexican authorities. Luster was given over to the authorities in the United States. When Chapman was released on bail, his attorney advised him to leave Mexico immediately because the felony kidnapping case against him had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Chapman later said that he believed his activities in Mexico were legitimate because he worked closely with a Mexican police officer while in that nation. However, the American judge in Luster’s case declined to offer Chapman any reward or bond for his capture of Luster. Chapman also explained that while pursuing Luster, he consulted with a forensic expert specializing in sex crimes (Chawkins, 2013). This expert believed that Luster’s preference for raping unconscious, passive victims indicated a necrophile tendency that could lead to murder. Chapman believed this expert’s opinion because Luster’s preference for raping unconscious, passive victims indicated a necrophile tendency.
The California Court of Appeal cited that Luster had been a fugitive as the primary reason for denying his appeal. It has been established through years of precedent that fugitives disrespect the authority of the court, and as a result, they lose their ability to appeal the decision (Chawkins, 2013). In succeeding years, both the Supreme Court of California and the United States declined to reverse this decision.
Luster’s Case Appeal
Late in 2009, Mr. Luster submitted a petition for habeas corpus as a last-ditch effort to have his case looked at by a different court on appeal. Jay Leiderman and J. David Nick was the attorney who represented Luster in that legal proceeding. The petition for habeas corpus was granted back in April 2012 (Chawkins, 2013). Since the trial judge did not provide clear justifications for imposing consecutive sentences, the Ventura County Superior Court vacated Luster’s 124-year sentence on March 11, 2013, but did not overturn his conviction. The court also scheduled a new sentencing hearing for April 4, 2013.
On April 16, 2013, Judge Kathryne Stoltz of the Ventura County Superior Court lowered Luster’s sentence to 50 years, 48 years for the rapes, and two years for the drug-related offences. The total sentence now stands at 50 years (Chawkins, 2013). The legal representation for Luster has suggested that they would file an appeal. In 2016, those who opposed California Proposition 57 distributed a flyer that said that Luster might be eligible for early release because of the lack of clarification around what constitutes serious offences. In response to this leaflet, Governor Jerry Brown of California informed Sheriff Margaret Mims of Fresno County that Luster had been originally sentenced to a hundred years in jail and was a registered sex offender (Chawkins, 2013). He would not be coming out of prison any time soon. Even if Proposition 57 were to be successful, Brown’s administration made it clear that Luster would not be eligible for parole since he would need to register as a sexual offender. Two of the victims were successful in their civil claims against Luster, and he was ultimately compelled to pay a total of $40 million in damages. After that, Luster parted ways with most of his possessions and filed for bankruptcy.
Luster’s Current Situation
Currently, Luster is detained at the Valley State Prison, located in Chowchilla, California. Following the laws of the state of California, because his actions caused harm to other people, he is obliged to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence before being eligible for release with time off for good conduct (Chawkins, 2013). If his original sentence had been upheld, Luster would not have been eligible for parole until he had completed 105 years of what was essentially a life sentence.
Why Luster’s Case Got Too Much Media Attention
Since Andrew hailed from an affluent family and was a well-known figure, the media lavished attention on him. Second, he was on the run, and the media aired any information they could find on him to help authorities find and catch him. After he left the United States to assist in his capture, a film called “A Date with Darkness: The Trial and Capture of Andrew Luster” was filmed about his actions ( Mitchell, 2021). The film concluded with a snapshot of Luster and an appeal for witnesses to his whereabouts to notify authorities. Because filming had already begun when Luster was arrested, the ending had to be altered to reflect this reality. Power, Privilege, and Justice, a true crime television series hosted by Dominick Dunne, aired an episode about the case on August 28, 2009 ( Mitchell, 2021). The episode was titled “Evil Deeds” and was part of the show’s Season 3, Episode 4. The first episode of Guilty Rich aired on Investigation Discovery on August 31, 2017 ( Mitchell, 2021). This episode documented Andrew Luster’s crimes, subsequent capture, flight, and eventual conviction and imprisonment.
Conclusion
Since Luster was recording what was going on, one may deduce that he was hoping to avoid getting punished for how he had followed the model in his head and instead receive an actual reward in its place. Luster did not foresee any results or impacts regarding the cognition or even the conduct he had displayed in the long run due to such behavior as raping his victims after he had engaged in such activity. Luster did not prepare himself in any way for the possibility that he might spend time in jail due to his rapping activity, as it has been established that this is the expected outcome for such behavior.
Luster’s activities portrayed some mastery expertise in how he conducted his business while also being able to elude the police dragnet for a significant amount of time. This is a reference to the cognitive theory, in which it is stated that a specific process may be able to assist a given individual, such as Luster, in being able to perform the activities they are undertaking while leading to objectives that may be considered to be more complex. Luster was able to give his victims a sense of passion through verbal persuasion, which he did before drugging them, which resulted in the crime of rape being committed by him.
References
Chawkins, S. (2013). Los Angeles Times. Convicted Rapist Andrew Luster’s 124-Year Sentence Vacated.
Deviance is an act perceived to be against one cultural belief and the act cannot be tolerated. Deviance acts are different from one community to another and also can vary depending on generational time.
For example, the homosexuality is allowed in American society, but in Africa the act is seen as satanic and can make the victims to be stoned to death. In some decades ago, divorce was seen to be against the rule of the church society, but with modernization, divorced has grown to be accepted as part of marriage life (Lukes 28).
Crime is an act that is against the norm of a society and the registered law of the entire country. If a person breaks a certain section of a country law, there is a correction sanction to that person. A person is usually taken to the court of law where the offence is listened to, by the judge and the person is either proven guilty or innocent.
A criminal can be put in jail for some time or for life, sentenced to death and even pay some money as a penalty (Lukes 28). A country law which is constitution is mostly formed by the parliament of that country.
Sociological perspective
Introduction. Sociologists have tried to understand crime and deviance in different ways. Most of the ancient sociologists have come up with different sociological perspectives that try to explain crime and deviance.
Emile Durkheim came up with rule of sociological methods that explained crime as part of society norms. Durkheim believed crime to be higher in modernized and industrialized society as compared to less modernized. In industrialized society, division of labor is the norm of life and each person is exposed to different work experiences (Moyer 54).
Division of labor exists in two ways, one is mechanical solidarity whereby the members of the society are similar and the organic solidarity in which society members creates a relationship among themselves through the division of labor. As in the division of labor, society people have different influences and situational experiences that distinguish one person from the other.
The personal differences make some people to be criminals and other to be good. No society lacks deviance or crime however perfect it could be. Every community has norms and traditions that put the members together and if the norms are broken, there is state of anomie and lawlessness.
Advantages of the perspective. Durkheim argued that besides division of labor helping to make production rise and improve the human capital it also possessed a moral character that created a sense of solidarity in humans. He explained with a married couple arguing that sexual desire would only exist after the material life has disappeared if the division of labor was to be reduced between the marriage partners.
Durkheim suggested that division of labor has more of social and moral order therefore married couple is bided by their common things they do. Durkheim saw that crime was beneficial to the society in some instances. Crime builds future morality by showing what law is to be followed.
For example a committed crime will lead to establishment of an order that will be followed by the people to avoid repetition of the same crime. Crime corrections or rewards were put not to punish a criminal and make the person stop the crime, but the punishment was to strengthen the entire law to help control crime. Durkheim saw that punishment and crime go together and cannot be separated (Marsh 98).
Drawbacks of the perspective. Crime is has negative impacts and dangerous to the people and the community at large if is at high levels. If crime is not controlled and increases more and more each day, the society can be unable to prevent the criminals. On the other hand, if the crime rate is too low, the society maybe abnormal.
According to Durkheim the breaking of the society way of living or the norms is what brings in the social change which is very important in community development. Otherwise the social change should be controlled or moderate to avoid social problem. In any case the deviance which motivate the social change should be regulated so that to prevent the loss of criminal identity which it is important in the future (Marsh 95).
Durkheim failed to explain how for example division of labor would be used to control crime in the society. Also not all crimes would be beneficial to the society because if a crime resulted to killing or a big damage then the society will drag behind on development.
Work Cited
Lukes, Steven. The rules of the sociological method. New York: Free press, 2007.
Marsh, Ian., Melville, Gaynor. Theories of crime. Canada: Routledge, 2006
Moyer, Imogene. Criminological theories: traditional and non traditional voices. London: sage publishers, 2001.
