Category: Crime

Introduction

The US has experienced a phenomenal increase in its incarceration rate over the last 30 years. Kovandzic and Vieraitis (2006) document that between the years 1980 and 2000, the country witnessed a 321% increase in the total number of prisoners. The number of people serving sentences of more than one year in prisons all over the country rose from just 315,956 in 1980 to 1,329,367 in 2000.

According to DeFina and Hannon (2011), this figure had risen to over 2 million by 2010. This incredible increase in the number of imprisoned people has been caused by the idea that putting more people behind bars will reduce crime. This perception is strongly grounded in the “incapacitation effect” principle, which states that once imprisoned, criminals cannot engage in any criminal activities against the general public.

However, the efficacy of this principle is questionable since the reality has been different, and imprisonment has not always contributed to a reduction in crime. This paper will argue that prisons do not diminish the crime rate since incarceration leads to an increase in delinquent individuals in society and decreases the deterrence effect of prisons.

Prisons do not Diminish Crime Rate

While prisons are intended to reduce the crime rate in society, they can contribute to increases in the crime rate since the prison system often leads to the production of delinquents. DeFina and Hannon (2011) state that prisons contribute to rising in crime since individuals are more likely to commit crimes when they come out of prison that they were before they went in.

While some inmates are already seasoned criminals, the prison population is also made up of first-time offenders and individuals who have not committed serious crimes. This is the case in US prisons, where most inmates have been sentenced for non-serious crimes.

Drehle and Jewler (2010) document that part of the reason for the dramatic increase in the prison population in the US since the 1980s is because lawmakers mandated tougher sentences for all crimes. A system that demands mandatory sentencing for first-time offenders who have not committed violent crimes inevitably locks up thousands of ‘not-so-bad’ people alongside hardened criminals.

Previously law-abiding citizens are prompted to engage in crime since people who are given prison sentences often come out of prison having acquired many anti-social skills and built a network of criminal friends. Prisons, therefore, contribute to the creation of criminals by hardening offenders and enhancing their criminal skills as they serve their sentence.

Increased imprisonment of non-serious offenders reduces the effectiveness of prisons in reducing crime. Imprisonment of serious high-offenders might lead to a significant reduction in crime. However, the currently employed strategy does not focus on high-offenders but also less serious and lower rate offenders (Shepherd, 2006).

This expansive incarceration approach causes the country to miss the desired benefits of crime reduction that prisons might bring. Research by Liedka et al. (2006) shows that when the prison population exceeds a certain point (referred to as the inflection point), further incarceration increases crime. The court system needs to be able to target the right offenders for incarceration for prisons to contribute to crime reduction in society.

High imprisonment rates decrease the effectiveness of prisons as a tool of punishment. Research indicates that States that overuse prisons in an attempt to control crime do not benefit from the desired outcome of lower crime within their counties. This case is best illustrated by Florida, which has established itself as the State whose counties have the highest imprisonment rates in the US.

In spite of the heavy imprisonment rates in the counties, the crime rate in Florida has continued to rise over the years (Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006). As more people are imprisoned, the fear associated with prisons is reduced, since imprisonment becomes a part of normal society. High incarceration exposes more members of society to the prison system.

Many people become aware of the prison experience either through their own experience or through that of friends. This increased awareness of the previously unknown prison environment reduces the general deterrence effect of prison punishment.

In some instances, prisons can even be seen as beneficial to the offender since they contribute to status enhancement among his/her peers. When citizens are not afraid to go to prison, they will not have an incentive not to engage in criminal activity that might land them in jail.

Prisons lead to reduced respect for the authority and law enforcement agencies, contributing to higher crime rates in society. While in prison, inmates are exposed to the abuse of power from prison administrators and guards. In addition to this, the prison system is exploitative as the inmates are made to engage in penal labor for little or no pay.

This leads to the development of a sense of injustice by the prisoner, and when he is released into society, he has less respect for the authority. The family and friends of the inmate also suffer from the effects of imprisonment. Prisons are disruptive to the social life of many families in the community (DeFina & Hannon, 2011).

People who have been directly affected by the system, through the incarceration of a close friend or family member, are likely to rebel against the government authority (Rose & Clear, 2004). This leads to a lack of cooperation with policing efforts contributing to higher crime rates.

Arguments in Support of Prisons and Counterarguments

One of the strongest arguments made to show that prisons reduce crime is that imprisonment leads to the incapacitation of offenders. Snyder and Stinchcomb (2006) explain that incarceration is fundamentally designed to make communities safer by keeping criminals away from society. While under confinement in the jail cells, offenders cannot commit the crimes for which they were convicted.

The public is therefore protected from criminal activity leading to reduced crime rates. While it is true that prisons play an important role through incapacitation, this might not lead to a reduction in crime rate in the society. The incapacitation effect is only limited to prisoners who are currently serving time.

The fact is that at any one time, the number of ex-convicts living in society is larger than that of the prisoners incapacitated by jail cells (Clear, Rose & Ryder, 2007). DeFina and Hannon (2011) assert that a full assessment of the effect of prisons on crime must “account for the detrimental impacts of past incarcerations” (p.19). In addition to this, the incapacitation effect principle fails to consider new criminals.

Incapacitation locks out the convicted offenders, but it does not affect youths and young adults considering the criminal activity. Spelman (2008) asserts that the removal of active offenders from society does not lead to a reduction in crime rates if these offenders are being replaced by fresh criminals.

Prisons contribute to crime reduction from playing a deterrence role. Imprisonment is designed to punish the offender by restricting his movement and denying him/her of many freedoms. Licht (2008) states that prison sentences enable the court system to effectively punish wrongdoers. This leads to significant distress, and many people are careful to avoid engaging in actions that might lead to imprisonment.

Prisons, therefore, discourage people from engaging in criminal activities since they might face the undesirable consequences of imprisonment (Drehle & Jewler, 2010). While it is true that prison plays a deterrence role, this deterrence is not dependent on the number of people imprisoned. Research indicates that the deterrent effect of prison might be significantly reduced by expanding incarceration.

Part of prison’s deterrence comes from the stigma that incarceration produces. People are careful to avoid prison since society views prisoners and ex-prisoners negatively. However, expanding incarceration will result in reduced stigmatization (Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006).

Rose and Clear (2004) document that due to the increase in imprisonment rates, most people in the US know somebody who is in prison. This exposure to prison decreases the stigma that incarceration previously carried.

Conclusion

This paper set out to show that prisons do not diminish crime rates in society. It began by highlighting the phenomenal increase in prisoner numbers in the US. By relying on studies carried out by criminology researchers, the paper has shown that high prison rates are not associated with lower crime rates. This paper has shown that instead of diminishing the crime rate in society, prisons have a crime-promoting effect.

The overuse of the expensive prisons by the criminal justice system should be reconsidered. The enormous expenses have been justified by the supposed positive effect that prisons have on crime rates. However, considering that this relationship between prison and crime rates is faulty, policymakers should make use of other strategies to tackle crime in society.

References

Clear, T., Rose, D., & Ryder, J. (2007). Incarceration and the community: The Problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 3 (2), 335-351.

DeFina, R., & Hannon, L. (2011). Mass Imprisonment Long-Term Harm versus Short-Term Good. Communities & Banking, 23(3), 18-20.

Drehle, V., & Jewler, S. (2010). Why Crime Went Away. Time, 175(7), 32-35.

Kovandzic, T.V., & Vieraitis, L.M. (2006). The Effect of County-Level Prison Population Growth on Crime Rates. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(2), 213-244.

Licht, A. N. (2008). Social Norms and the Law: Why People Obey the Law. Review of Law and Economics, 4 (2), 715–750.

Liedka, R., A. Piehl and B. Useem. 2006. The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter? Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2):245-276.

Rose, D., & Clear, T. (2004) Who doesn’t know someone in prison or jail: The impact of exposure to prison on attitudes toward formal and informal social control. Prison Journal, 82(1), 208-227.

Shepherd, J. (2006). The imprisonment puzzle: Understanding how prison growth affects crime. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2):285-298.

Snyder, H.N., & Stinchcomb, J.B. (2006). Do Higher Incarceration Rates Mean Lower Crime Rates? Today, 68(6), 92-97.

Spelman, W. (2008). Specifying the Relationship Between Crime and Prisons. J Quant Criminol, 24(1), 149–178.

Introduction

Chicago, sometimes called “the Windy City”, is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country; however, it also does have its share of crime resulting in the need to protect witnesses to ensure that a proper prosecution of criminals is implemented.

The city is divided into a standard grid with the financial business district located in the city center with areas related to manufacturing such as factories and warehouses located within the outskirts of the city with various apartment buildings, malls and government offices radiating out from the center. Roughly an hour away from the city, are the various sub-urban districts which consist of middle to high income families.

All in all, Chicago is quite similar to many of the major metropolitan centers of the country with its only distinction being its rather strong weather patterns and higher amounts of factories that are located near the city center as compared to areas such as Manhattan and L.A. that have their factories located farther out from the city.

Problem statement

One of the current problems when it comes to dealing with organized crime syndicates within the city is the fact that they have the propensity of “silencing witnesses” (i.e. killing them) in order to ensure that a conviction is not implemented.

It is due to this that proper witness protection programs need to be implemented to ensure that witnesses continue to survive until they are needed and for a time after a conviction has been made to ensure that they continue to stay alive.

Program Design and Narrative

The program design focuses on using a series of apartments located in the central business district of the city to hide the witnesses in plain sight. The logic behind this plan is that most of the apartments located near the central business district are popular and frequently trafficked, as such, this results in a considerable amount of private security already implemented within the area (Bhuckory, 2013).

It should also be noted that by placing witnesses in apartments located within the city itself, this helps to limit the amount of distance between them and the courthouse. The end result is a decrease in the potential for the witness to be killed on the way to the location.

Proposed Method of Implementation

The proposed method of implementation is actually quite simple; the apartments will be bought under a pseudonym by the Chicago Police Department using the $500,000 in funds that will be provided. Once the apartments have been bought, witnesses can be brought into the apartment via the basement parking level of the building to avoid people from identifying the witness.

After the witness is safely inside the apartment, a guard detail will be placed to look after the witness while at the same time food will be brought in via a person going out to buy the food instead of having the food delivered to the apartment. This helps to further reduce the potential that someone might see the face of the witness and relay it to the criminal syndicate that might be after them (Employee Whistle Blower Protections, 2014).

Once the court date is near, the witness will be brought to the basement garage of the apartment building and from there they will be transported via a car to the courthouse in order to testify against the criminal in question.

Once a sufficient testimony has been given, the witness will be transported back to the apartment where they will wait for the decision of the jury. After a verdict regarding the criminal case has been successfully pushed through, the witness will be guarded at the apartment for at least 2 more weeks before they will be allowed to go back to their ordinary life.

It is expected that through the implementation of such precautions and with the use of the funds that will be donated, more witnesses will be willing to testify in court against the various criminal syndicates that are operating in Chicago since they will know that they will be safeguarded properly by the police (Paunovió, Staršević & Nešić, 2013).

Do note that once every 4 years the apartment where the witnesses are being held will be sold and another apartment will be bought. This is to prevent criminal syndicates from figuring out where the Chicago Police Department is safeguarding its witnesses.

Reference List

Bhuckory, S. (2013). Victim and witness protection: the way forward. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 39(1), 43-48.

Employee Whistle Blower Protections. (2014). Bank Security Report, 43(5), 3-5.

Paunovió, S., Staršević, D., & Nešić, L. (2013). Identity Management and Witness Protection System. Management (1820-0222), (66), 27-37.

Most criminal justice systems, despite being relatively flawed, offer aggrieved individuals the best platform for accessing justice.

Suspects and victims can resolve their differences through these systems. All branches of government depend on the criminal justice system to mitigate crime and uphold social control. The criminal justice system consists of the following departments: legislative, corrections, and courts. There is personnel in the criminal justice system that ensures the criminal justice system operates efficiently.

One of the most important people within the criminal justice system is the prosecutor. The prosecutor is an officer of the court whose main responsibility is to ensure criminals face the full force of the law. Also, the officer protects innocent people from unwarranted sentencing.

The prosecutor also determines the appropriate appeal bargains to enter and may request the court to dismiss the charges (Davis, 2009). Due to the exceptional duties, prosecutors have more discretion than other legal personnel does in the justice system. Objectivity and sound discretion are crucial attributes that these court officers need to embrace when performing their duties.

The Bar Association understands that prosecutors have crucial roles to play in the court, including the need to adhere to strict codes of conduct. They have to weigh up the significance of evidence, court resources, and policies of their office before presenting a case in court.

The Bar Association has set out and defined standards of professional conduct that prosecutors must adhere to in their course of duty. A prosecutor must comply with the established rule to convict an accused person, and not follow their convictions. The prosecutor must also evaluate the impact of the victim’s statements, which establishes the extent of damage that the suspect has caused (Davis, 2009).

Another vital individual within the justice system is the defense attorney. Many people view this personnel as agents of anti-justice in the criminal justice system. However, this popular view is inaccurate. Defense attorneys help ensure the courts upholds the rights of all individuals by the standard legal procedures.

Defense attorneys inform the defendants their rights and advocates for bail for their clients, whenever pertinent. The attorneys also negotiate with the prosecutor to have charges against their clients dropped or reduced. Another essential role of defense attorneys is researching to determine the best defense mechanisms that might persuade the judge’s decision (Davis, 2009).

The criminal and victim are other individuals that play significant roles within the criminal justice system. Both the criminal and victim have rights, and the prosecutor coordinates with the defense attorney to ensure the court protects the rights. The rights of the victims have changed considerably over the past two decades.

In the past few years, the main roles of the victim in the criminal justice system were to file complaints and be present for interviews, if the court required. In the contemporary criminal justice system, besides the traditional functions, the victim is a crucial source of evidence. They also have the right to make a victim’s statement in court.

On the other hand, the criminal’s main role is to work with their defense attorney to gather and present exonerating evidence in court. If the court convicts the criminal, they serve the punishment that the court has given. The judge, persecutor, defense attorney, criminal, and the victim should work together to deliver justice. However, various factors often prohibit the judge from delivering accurate and just rulings (Davis, 2009).

Victimization is the most common element in the criminal justice system that is an obstacle to the delivery of justice. The criminal often uses self-victimization to justify the illegal actions that they have perpetrated.

The role of self-victimization within the criminal justice system is to manipulate others to make the court incapable of convicting them of any charges.

Criminals achieve this objective by presenting information showing that they are victims of circumstances, and either the plaintiff or another person is the criminal. If they successfully provide evidence to support their claims, the court may punish an innocent party and set free a lawbreaker, which is a drawback in the criminal justice system (Morrison, 2008).

All individuals in the criminal justice system have clear-cut roles when it comes to sentencing. Foremost, the defense attorney’s role is to ensure their client gets the most appropriate legal treatment. The attorney aims at getting the least amount of punishment or no punishment for their client.

However, the prosecutor’s role is to ensure the judge gives the most severe punishment permissible under the law. The aim of the criminal is to get almost no punishment for the alleged crime. Besides, they need to follow the advice of their attorney. Lastly, the victim’s intention is to achieve punishment that assures them justice.

The court can use alternative sanctions to ensure all parties get justice in the most appropriate manner. The goal of alternative sanctions is to give a punishment that is fair and reasonable (Morrison, 2008). Alternative sanctions range from probation to imprisonment.

The courts often consider the sanctions for non-violent crimes. In this case, all parties in the criminal justice system give their recommendation regarding the effectiveness of using alternative sanctions as a better sentencing option. However, as in every court process, the binding resolution lies with the judge. In making the final decision, the judge has to evaluate whether the criminal is a threat to the safety of the public.

Notably, governments should take considerable care of the rights of victims and prevent victimization. Victimization is a threat to the existence of trustworthy institutions of justice. Therefore, it is essential that courts accord victims more rights than defendants with the objective of protecting defendants from being victims of weak judicial systems.

Apart from working hard to recognize the rights of victims, the court should adopt advanced technology as a tool for enhancing just decision-making.

Experts in technology have revealed that DNA testing can indicate whether an accused person is a criminal (Morrison, 2008). Over-dependence on witness statements is dangerous, given the increasing rate of lack of ethics in the society. As a result, it is inappropriate to give technology a less prominent role in the criminal justice system.

In addition to advanced technology, another crucial element of an efficient criminal justice system is competent judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors. Victims cannot get justice if these officials lack quality education and resources.

Moreover, lack of moral values among the officers is another critical threat to the criminal justice system. When corruption, nepotism, racism, and other vices crop into the justice system, victimization can thrive in the system and lead to failure to deliver justice. Therefore, the courts should adopt advanced technology and recruit morally upright and competent staff to deliver justice to all people.

References

Davis, R. C. (2009). Securing rights for victims a process evaluation of the National Crime Victim Law Institute’s victims’ rights clinics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Morrison, Y. (2008). The DNA gave it away: Teens solve crime. New York: Children’s Press.

Rape and Statutory Rape

Rape and statutory rape are some of the major forms of violence against women and minors. The two crimes involve illegal sexual contact. California and New York refer to rape as illegal sexual intercourse that involves force or coercion (Travis, 2003). Rape involves adults.

On the other hand, the states refer to statutory rape that refers to the illegal sexual contact between an adult and a minor. An adult refers to a person who has attained the age of consent, whereas; a minor refers to an individual who is under that age (Gardner & Anderson, 2008). In the U.S., the age of consent is 18 years.

In California, statutory rape is punishable by imprisonment of a maximum of 8 years and, what goes for rape, this crime is punishable by a maximum of 16 years. In New York, on the other hand, imprisonment for rape or statutory rape may reach the maximum sentence of 25 years.

Assault, Battery, and Mayhem

Battery refers to “actual physical contact that is offensive in some way” (Briggs, 2011, p. 63). On the other hand, assault refers to “the intentional attempt or threat to physically injure another” (Boyes-Watson, 2013, p. 115). Aggravated assault refers to the threat to inflict grave personal harm on an individual.

These personal harms may include murder, rape, or robbery. However, mere assault is the threat to commit fewer grave harm. The perpetrator must act in a manner that makes the victim believe that the individual would commit the battery.

On the other hand, mayhem refers to an aggravated form of battery (Boyes-Watson, 2013). These forms of the aggravated battery may include burning the individual’s face with acid or severing a certain body part. Therefore, battery and assault may be components of mayhem. However, the reverse may not be true.

It is common for people to use the terms “assault” and “battery” interchangeably while referring to different situations. Therefore, people who are victims of the battery may claim that they are victims of assault. California’s legislation does not contain the word ‘battery.’

Therefore, in the state, assault may refer to the battery. On the other hand, New York defines battery as physical contact with the intention of causing harm to another individual. New York legislation terms assault as the threat to harm an individual (Boyes-Watson, 2013).

The maximum sentence for assault in New York and California is the imprisonment for 25 years, and the same goes for battery in the two states. On the other hand, the sentence for mayhem in both states is life imprisonment.

Kidnapping and False Imprisonment

New York and California define kidnapping as the non-consensual transportation for a person for a significant distance or forcible holding of an individual in an isolated location. On the other hand, false imprisonment refers to the illegal or non-consensual arrest of an individual.

Both kidnapping and false imprisonment involve confinement of an individual. However, the location for keeping the individual incarcerated may be different for both crimes. Kidnapping mainly involves confinement in a distant location (Briggs, 2011).

California defines false imprisonment as a violation of the liberties of an individual. On the other hand, New York defines it as the forcible capture of an individual. According to California’s Penal Code 207, 208, and 209, the maximum duration of imprisonment for kidnapping is 25 years.

On the other hand, according to New York Penal Code 135, the sentence for this crime is imprisonment for 5 to 25 years. In California, when accused of false imprisonment, an individual is incarcerated for a maximum of 5 years. The maximum sentence for false imprisonment in New York is also five years.

References

Boyes-Watson, C. (2013). Crime and justice: Learning through cases. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Briggs, S. (2011). Criminology for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gardner, T.J. & Anderson, T.M. (2008). Criminal law. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Travis, C.B. (2003). Evolution, gender, and rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Throughout the world, research has reliably demonstrated that organized criminal groups operate and act within the context of the social institution, implying that they have specific basic attributes such as objectives, interaction, social structure and management (Yarmysh, 2001).

In line with the social institution tradition, the goals and objectives of organized criminal groups are usually set by leaders and customized according to the requirements and interests of group members (Mallory, 2007). This paper not only discusses the term ‘social institution’ as it relates to organized crime, but also illuminates which theories are most applicable to this perspective.

The term ‘social institution’ can be understood within the context of the community, which has been defined by Warren (1973) as “that combination of social units and systems which perform the major social functions having locality relevance” (Lyman & Potter, 2007p. 74).

Owing to the fact that a community is recognized by its organization of social activities and its conceptualizations of locality relevance dimensions in terms of access points to the social activities and functions necessary for daily living, Warren (1973) identified five major community functions namely

1. production-distribution-consumption,
2. socialization,
3. social control,
4. social participation,
5. mutual support (Lyman & Potter, 2007).

The relationship between the social institution and organized crime comes into light when these community functions fail to function properly. For example, the failure of the production-distribution-consumption function provides an opening for organized crime to become entrenched in the society as criminal elements seek to take advantage of the legitimate market’s failure to serve consumer populations.

Within the social institution, organized criminal groups may seek profitable and safe investments through utilizing other locality relevance functions such as socialization, social control and social participation (Yarmysh, 2001).

Legitimate businesses, according to Lyman and Potter (2007), serve a variety of functions for organized criminal groups including providing concealment opportunities for illegal activities, availing money-laundering opportunities for illegal profits, and facilitating the existence of high degrees of integration with members of the business community.

Equally, organized criminal groups provide lucrative services to some business practitioners within the social context, though this assertion should not be taken to mean that all business practitioners’ deal with organized criminal groups or that organized crime activity is favorable for business (Lyman & Potter, 2007).

Available literature has also documented how organized crime relates to the social institution by providing benefits to legitimate business operations through activities such as harassment of business competitors, providing extra capital for joint investment ventures, and seeking opportunities for collaborating with management to control labor unions.

Lyman and Potter (2007) acknowledge that “organized crime often provides services and jobs for community residents that the legitimate world cannot or will not supply” (p. 76).

Indeed, it can be argued that organized crime is at the core of the social institution when illegal services (e.g., gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs) and legitimate business opportunities (e.g., waiters, waitresses, technicians and bartenders) are put into consideration (Lyman & Potter, 2007). Consequently, it is almost impossible to divorce the concept of social institution from organized crime.

Lastly, in terms of theoretical underpinnings, it is argued that relative deprivation and social control theoretical perspective are most applicable to the perspective of social inclusion as it relates to organized crime.

Relative deprivation is basically an ecological approach suggesting that the disparity between communities where the deprived and the wealthy live in close proximity to one another triggers a general feeling of antagonism, aggression and social unfairness on the part of inner-city populace (Lyman & Potter, 2007), while the social control theory postulates that individuals who are involved with a community and demonstrate firm family ties are less likely to engage in prohibited activities than those who do not (Mallory, 2007).

In relative deprivation, it is evident that the inequality between the rich and the poor is likely to disrupt the production-distribution-consumption community function, often giving rise to various forms of organized crime as criminal elements attempt to take advantage of the prevailing situation.

Similarly, in the context of the social control theory, it can be argued that a person who has no capacity to establish a positive relationship with the community is likely to be engaged in crime owing to the fact that the production-distribution-consumption community function is markedly disrupted.

References

Lyman, M.D., & Potter, G.W. (2007). Organized crime (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Mallory, S.L. (2007). Understanding organized crime. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Yarmysh, A.N. (2001). A behavioral model for Ukrainian organized crime groups. Trends in Organized Crime, 6(3/4), 143-149.

In most cases, people have watched crimes happen without reporting them because of the complexities involved in reporting crimes, as some do not want to be involved in investigations; others are ignorant or frightened to the point that they cannot even report what happens. However, individuals are legally required to report a crime as it happens. In this research argument, the ‘1964 Kitty Genovese Case’ could be used to support why witnesses do not report crimes as they happen (Behrens & Rosen 433-500).

In this case, Kitty also known as Catherine was the eldest child in a middle-class Italian-American family living in New York City. It can be seen from the case that, she decided to be left in the city when her parents migrated to Connecticut after a murder had occurred within the city. It is well indicated that Kitty had parked her car after returning from work at around 3.15 a.m.; when a man in black drew near her from the midst of darkness. After this, she was outdone by the man in a chase and was knifed many times despite the fact that she struggled to yell for help. From the case, it can be seen that no one came to rescue her except a man who yelled from inside his house to the murderer; telling him to ‘leave her alone. In this case, observers saw the attacker enter his car only to come back again to complete his mission; but did not dare help or report the case to the police. It can be seen from the case that, the attacker found Kitty when he came back for the second time bleeding and weak; when he raped and robbed her of some $49. The witnesses said that the police arrived after being called by Karl Ross some minutes after the murderer had run away. This episode lasted for about half an hour, without anything being done to stop it or even report it to the police (Rosenthal 10-79).

Based on this case, it can be argued that thirty-eight people witnessed the murder but did not report it because of varied reasons and excuses. In this case, it can be deduced that many crimes happen unreported because of the onlookers’ assumptions; where they think the noises heard may be as a result of drunkards or between quarreling lovers. This has been brought about by the frequent noises and shouts; which are usually found in most city streets. Based on these assumptions, many attacks are not reported as it can be seen from Kitty’s case; where some onlookers thought her screaming was a result of a lover’s quarrel. From the case, a witness said, “We thought it was a lover’s quarrel” which made them ignore it (Rosenthal 1079).

On the other hand, crimes are not reported as a result of fearfulness among the onlookers; after they get frightened to the extent that they can not make a call to the police. In this case, one gets frightened and starts shivering, fearing to be heard or seen, and gets attacked too. From the case, some witnesses were much afraid hence could not find the courage to call the police; an onlooker said that “Frankly, we were afraid”. “I tried but I was gasping for air and was unable to talk over the phone”; another onlooker said. Further, some witnesses fear being involved in the investigations carried out by the police after an attack. Based on this, people fear to be identified as the first to report a crime; as can be seen from Kitty’s case. In Kitty’s case, a witness told the press that he had attempted to call the police but her wife stopped him saying, “I didn’t want my husband to get involved”. In this case, it can be argued that onlookers do not report a crime happening since they do not want to waste their time going to the court to be witnesses or suffer legal consequences (Rosenthal 10-79).

Additionally, it can be argued that crimes are not reported as they happen because of the ignorance of the onlookers. In this case, some witnesses do not know what to do and others assume that they are not supposed to report, thinking that many others have done it or will do it. From Kitty’s case, a witness stated that she could not allow her husband to report the case, since she assumed that many others had done it. Based on this, she said that; “I didn’t let him”, saying that “there must have been thirty calls already made”. Further, others are ignorant of what is happening and do not bother concentrating on matters which are not theirs. From Kitty’s case, there was a witness who was ignorant enough to say, “I was tired” hence could not report the crime (Rosenthal 10-79).

In this case, the onlookers took no action to help Kitty or even report the crime which came to be known as ‘Genovese Syndrome’ or ‘bystander effect’. It can be seen from the case that the attack took place at night when residents were asleep; hence had no vivid outlook of the whole episode. Based on this, this crime was not reported since as it had been said earlier; people thought that it was an argument among two lovers. It is clear from the case that, police were called but didn’t respond urgently as they were not informed that she had been badly knifed. In this case, crimes usually go unreported because of this bystander effect; where witnesses just look at a crime happening but are not in a position to report it (Rosenthal10-79).

On the other hand, it is not legal to witness a crime happen and fail to report or help the victim fearing being sued. In most cases when one is attacked, people fail to help the victim for the fear of being sued to depict the bystander effect. According to the ‘Good Samaritan Law’, someone who willingly saves an injured party from suffering is protected from being effectively prosecuted for wrongdoing. Based on this, the aim of this law in Kitty’s case could be to prevent people who did not want to be involved in the case from legal consequences; in case the victim died in their hands, or if they were identified as the reporters of this crime in the event they helped her or called the police (Behrens & Rosen 488-600).

It should be noted that onlookers rather than witnessing a crime and failing to report it for the fear of being involved, should on the other hand hide their identities when calling. By doing this, they could save the victim through police intervention where; through the ‘Good Samaritan Law’ doctrines, the reporters should be protected from being sued. Additionally, in Kitty’s case, the victim could have not died if it was reported earlier enough (Ragle 102-123).

In conclusion, even though onlookers fear to be involved or are afraid to the extent of not being able to report a crime, they should report saving the life of the victim. In this case, it can be seen from Kitty’s case that she would have not died; in case the police had been called in time or if the witnesses volunteered to rescue her. Based on this, the witnesses should know that there is the ‘Good Samaritan Law’ to protect them from legal consequences when they involve themselves in helping a crime victim.

Works cited

Behrens, Laurence & Rosen, Leonard. “Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum”. New York: Longman Publishing Group. (2007): P. 488-600

Behrens, Laurence & Rosen, Leonard. “Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum”. California: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company. (1996): 433-500

Ragle, Larry. “Crime Scene: From Fingerprints to DNA Testing”. New York: Avon. (1995): P. 102-123

Rosenthal, A. M. “Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case”, First Edition. California: University of California Press. (1999): P. 10-79

Summary of the News

The news in the area of the State of Ohio was expected to revolve around homicides and car break-ins. The news that was found showed that this statement was partially true. The first piece of news dealt with a guy who shot a woman, her unborn child, her father, and her two younger siblings (17 and 19 years old respectively) and then pleaded guilty in order to escape a possible death sentence (“Suspect in Cleveland slayings pleads guilty, avoids death sentence,” 2017).

Regardless, he was sentenced by the judge to five life sentences due to certain aggravating circumstances and will have no possibility to shorten the jail term or bail out. The second piece of news told us the story of a former bus driver who hit a pedestrian and pleaded not guilty (“Highland Heights woman pleads not guilty in death of Cleveland pedestrian,” 2017). According to the report, she slowed down but it was not enough to evade the accident, and she hit the pedestrian when the latter was in the crosswalk. The former bus driver was charged with aggravated vehicular assault but managed to evade the sentence.

The third piece of news dwelled on an increased number of car break-ins in Vermilion and presented it as a trivial pattern that is not going to develop into a large-scale car break-in streak (“String of car break-ins reported in Vermilion,” 2017). All of the accidents are still under investigation. Several juveniles were seen in the area, but the law enforcement officers did not have any evidence that would help them to identify those juveniles as the offenders.

Influence of the Media on Criminal Justice

It is pivotal to understand that the news became one of the fundamental parts of our life. Therefore, its direct and indirect impact, even if not palpable, majorly influences our perceptions regarding crimes and illicit behavior (Mallicoat, 2016). Overall, the current media has a substantial impact on society and shapes the outlooks of the latter in line with the governmental and criminal justice requirements.

This means that we only see some things in the news that were previously approved to be shown on TV or printed in the newspapers. Nonetheless, the dynamic nature of crime cannot be underestimated, and one has to understand that the majority of contemporary individuals may search the Internet for the latest news and find things that were not intended to be seen by the majority of the public (Marion & Oliver, 2015).

Despite both positive and negative connotations of the decision to conceal some of the data, the government (in association with the law enforcement agency) does a great job managing the data stream that makes it to the headlines. Ultimately, the news is one of the aspects that influence the development of the concept of criminal justice and help the government find weak spots in the legislation.

The Connection between Local Crimes and Crime Control Policies

The connection between the crimes that were committed in the State of Ohio and the crime control policies that were employed by the respective committee is not direct. This happens because the government is mostly concerned with public safety. That is why the law enforcement agency keeps track of the crimes that occur in the State of Ohio and then transmits the information to the committee that is responsible for laws and legislations.

Lately, the activity in the area hints at the fact that a new crime control policy concerning an increased number of car break-ins is required. On a bigger scale, local crimes tend to change the perceptions of the crimes that are committed in the State of Ohio and open the prospects for new projects in the area of crime control policies.

Evaluation of the Influence of Media in the Area

The media in the area does not really influence criminal activity. This supposition is based on the fact that the majority of the crimes that are committed in the State of Ohio (and, most probably, in any other state) tend to go unnoticed by the audience. The reason behind this is not quite clear, but the law enforcement agency does its best in order to share only insignificant pieces of criminal news. Most likely, this happens because they do not want to see a troubled and worried community and expect to reduce the level of anxiety among juveniles and adult wrongdoers.

Based on the information found on the criminal activity in the area of the State of Ohio, it is reasonable to claim that the thesis statement was partially validated as some of the articles actually dwelled on car break-ins. One of the most realistic reasons may be the willingness of the police to cover the serious crimes and calm the unrest among the masses. There is nothing wrong about it because the police reduce the influence of media on the residents of the State of Ohio by concealing some of the data regarding grave crimes. Overall, it can be concluded that the media influence in the area is weak, but it does not bear a negative connotation at all.

References

Highland Heights woman pleads not guilty in death of Cleveland pedestrian. (2017). Web.

Mallicoat, S. (2016). Crime and criminal justice: Concepts and controversies. New York, NY: SAGE.

Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. (2015). Public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

String of car break-ins reported in Vermilion. (2017). Web.

Suspect in Cleveland slayings pleads guilty, avoids death sentence. (2017). Web.

State and federal objectives of punishment

One of the key objectives of the criminal justice system is to punish someone for the wrong they have committed. People who adhere to this school of thought are not overly concerned about the future of their decision. Their primary concern is to the right a wrong. Some of the factors that punishers consider when passing sentences in this school of thought is the magnitude of the harm caused by the perpetrator as well as the expression of remorse from the individual.

It is often assumed that if a person is remorseful about their actions, then they may not have anticipated the outcomes or could have done harm accidentally. Further, the motive behind the action may sometimes neutralize the harshness of the sentence, as some intentions are more morally acceptable than others (Carlsmith et al., 2002).

State and federal criminal justice systems also punish to prevent criminals from committing future crimes. Therefore, deterrence is a key reason for passing sentences. The logic behind this motive is that if a person is aware of the liability for their actions, then they will be prevented from committing future crimes. They will weigh the benefit of committing the wrong against the cost of getting caught and refrain from doing so.

Common forms of punishment in the deterrence school include corporal punishment, imprisonment, and payment of fines. Usually, punishers make the sentence public such that other people will be aware of the act and refrain from engaging in it in the future. They want to treat individuals who get caught as examples to others. Persons who focus on this objective also believe that if it is difficult to detect a crime, then the magnitude of punishment should be increased to teach others a lesson.

Federal and state criminal systems also punish to incapacitate the wrongdoer. These proponents believe that if a person has been caught doing a wrong, the simplest way of preventing him from committing future wrongs is by keeping him away from members of society by locking them up. The goal is to restrain such dangerous persons by removing opportunities to commit a crime.

Finally, punishment may occur to rehabilitate the wrongdoer. Adherents of this school of thought focus on reducing recidivism rates by reforming the criminal within corrections systems. Sometimes this may occur through work or vocational programs.

Sex-offender treatment plans, drug rehabilitation, behavioral therapy, and community employment are also other methods. These programs intend to prevent individuals from committing crimes after they leave the prison by addressing the root cause of their criminal ways. It also equips them with the knowledge needed to survive in the community legitimately.

How sentencing affects federal and state corrections systems

Sentencing affects corrections systems by introducing additional costs in the management of convicts or potential convicts. Hearings have to take place, and if a sentence allows for revocation of the decision, then the corrections systems will have to accommodate extra costs of transporting this person to those proceedings. Once a sentence has been passed, then corrections facilities have to cater for the well being of the convict.

They provide food, shelter, medical treatment, and other care plans if the convict belongs to a rehabilitation program. If sentences are more severe, in that they pass longer sentences or increase the number of punishable crimes, then the country’s prison population will increase.

Sometimes this may lead to poor management of the facilities or increased expenditure in corrections facilities. Certain states may choose to build more prisons to accommodate rising numbers of convicts. Alternatively, if sentencing becomes less severe, then state coercion will have smaller prison populations and will release more criminals back into society.

When prison crowding occurs, several challenges arise for corrections systems. They must intensify their surveillance systems to maintain order in the facilities. Additionally, certain unwanted behavior may increase in corrections facilities. For instance, cases of illegal drug use may become uncontrollable when the numbers are so high. Planning and management of older inmates may become a reality if longer sentences become the norm.

These individuals require extra medical attention and alterations in the physical facilities as the aged have more physical disabilities. Even instances of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS are much higher in prison once the numbers increase. Cases of mentally ill convicts may also increase with harsher penalties. Since correctional facilities do not always get a corresponding rise in funding whenever severe or harsher sentences are passed, then it becomes difficult to manage these individuals.

Determinate and indeterminate sentencing

Determinate sentencing refers to punishment, which is definitive. For instance, if a judge decides to give a suspect 12 years in prison under determinate sentencing, the person will serve that full 12 years. This form of punishment arose when the public called for truth in sentencing. They wanted to be sure that criminals served their full sentences.

Conversely, indeterminate sentencing refers to judgments that are flexible. They allow convicts to be released earlier than usual. For instance, a person may receive a judgment of twenty-five years to life. This denotes that when they complete the twenty years, a parole hearing may occur and the person could leave prison earlier than anticipated.

The state appears to be leaning more towards determinate sentencing as a result of public outcry. Many individuals were frustrated at the idea of living with offenders who they assumed would remain locked up for a long time.

These objectives stemmed from the frequency with which criminals were eligible for parole irrespective of whether they had served the maximum time allocated. In states such as Florida, a sentencing system that requires offenders to serve at least 85% of their sentence denoted this move towards determinate sentencing.

Indeterminate sentencing seems to be the most appropriate model. It deals with the problem of overcrowding and gives offenders an incentive to reform. A person who is incarcerated under the determinate sentencing model has a 107% higher chance of committing disorderly offenses in prison than one in the indeterminate system (Miller & Bales, 2012). This is because the latter model will examine a convict’s record in prison to establish his eligibility for parole.

Additionally, determinate sentences increase the costs of managing prisons as they increase populations. Indeterminate sentencing focuses on rehabilitation of convicts such that they can be better prepared for life after prison. Determinate models appear to be a reactive stance to calls for tougher attitudes towards criminals. It is not a sustainable approach because it overburdens corrections facilities.

This takes away funds from other social needs like education. States like California have had to cut down on their education budget to manage soaring prison populations. The American criminal justice system needs a proactive approach that mitigates future crimes rather than one that merely deals with the ones that have occurred.

References

Carlsmith, K., Darley, J. & Robinson, P. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284-299.

Miller, C. & Bales, W. (2012). The impact of determinate sentencing on prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 394-403.

Organized crime affects law enforcement efforts in many countries. As a result, governments need to come up with effective enforcement strategies that are responsive to evolving crime trends. Organized crime is a form of crime that is committed by sophisticated criminal networks which engage in different forms of illegal conspiracies. Organized crime creates an environment of lawlessness in a particular location and thrives due to social and economic inequalities.

There are many factors that make it easy for criminal networks to carry out their activities without being deterred by law enforcement agencies. Inadequate resources, lack of tactical awareness, corruption and ineffective laws allow criminals to commit serious offences. This paper will discuss various issues that impact on organized crime and how they affect law enforcement in different areas where they are practiced.

Organized crime syndicates in various countries have been accused of using their transnational networks to engage in different types of illegal activities. Unethical behavior, rampant corruption and collusion by law enforcement officers make it possible for criminal syndicates to carry out their illegal activities with little or no interference from the state. In many instances, illegal schemes perpetuated by criminals make it difficult for law enforcement agencies to distinguish between legal and illegal business enterprises (Mallory, 2007, p. 56).

In the last three decades, there has been an increase in criminal enterprises that seek to gain high returns from illegal activities. However, in many instances, these enterprises are able to acquire a significant amount of power that allows them to influence the legislative agenda of different territories they operate in.

Criminal organizations are increasingly relying on different technological platforms to communicate and share ideas on how to evade arrests by law enforcement agencies. In addition, they are using proxy companies to cover up their activities to enable them to save large amounts of money which they obtain from criminal activities.

Despite these changes, crime intelligence and analysis strategies have not evolved to deal effectively with these new threats on law and order. Law enforcement officers lack the necessary resources required to deal effectively with complex criminal schemes that are planned and executed by large criminal organizations (Mallory, 2007, p. 59). It has become critical for law enforcement agencies to rely on different forms of tactical analysis to monitor new organized criminal trends and the impacts they have on different societies.

More importantly, ineffective laws do not place more emphasis on information sharing and this loophole makes it difficult for law enforcement officers to prevent serious criminal offenses from happening. As a result, criminal organizations find it easy to execute their activities without any form of deterrence from law enforcement agencies. The causal links between organized crime and socio-economic problems have not been adequately addressed in many countries (Mallory, 2007, p. 67).

This has made it easy for criminal syndicates to control poor urban settlements because they offer unemployed youth economic opportunities which elected governments cannot offer. Therefore, it is important for law enforcement agencies to appreciate the sociological factors that expose young people to crime to come with more effective remedies. They need to win the minds and hearts of residents in poor neighbourhoods to encourage them through community policing initiatives that address different criminal situations.

There are different legal limitations which hamper the fight against organized crime. Criminal experts argue that drug trafficking in Pakistan and Afghanistan enables terrorist groups to acquire funding which they use to destabilize governments. As a result, they are able to network with other terrorist cells in other parts of the world easily because they have the financial power needed to disguise their activities.

Policy makers are always distracted by bipartisan interests and they are slow to react to different criminal trends that pose a grave danger to national security. Criminal networks find it easy to clean up dirty proceeds from their activities through legitimate economic channels without being subjected to scrutiny (Mallory, 2007, p. 72). In many instances, financial firms are unwilling to reveal the nature of their dealings with large criminal enterprises to law enforcement agencies because they generate a lot of profits from such activities.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Crime is one of the internationally recognized legal frameworks that outline steps governments need to follow to deal with organized crime.

However, its main weakness is the inability by foreign governments to share information with one another on how to eliminate intricate transnational criminal networks. Some countries have failed to institute extradition treaties with one another and as a result, they provide a safe haven to vicious international criminals (Hauck, & Peterke, 2010, p. 414).

In some instances, law enforcement officers have to get court orders first before they are allowed to search the premises of criminal suspects and this makes it difficult for them to stop different criminal incidents from happening. The Money Laundering Act of 2009 has helped to combat the activities of different criminal syndicates in the U.S. However, criminal forensic experts have argued that financial institutions are reluctant to cooperate with the F.B.I and this has failed to stop high incidents of money laundering.

Proper planning and allocation of resources will make it possible for law enforcement agencies to deal with different crimes more effectively. For instance, field agent utilization by the F.B.I. is not effective and this makes it difficult for the agency to arrest and charge various suspects before law courts.

As a result, there are so many locations that are underserved by federal agents and this hampers the fight against organized crime across the country (Hauck, & Peterke, 2010, p. 421). They need to invest in more efficient data analysis and information gathering techniques to ensure they are more proactive towards solving different types of crimes that happen in different areas. Consequently, they will be in a position to deal with complex crimes that happen in and outside their legal jurisdictions more effectively.

Technological solutions need to be deployed more to equip law enforcement officers with appropriate strategies to deal with complex crimes. This will allow agents to locate the movements of different criminal suspects and as a result, they will be in a position to reduce the threats they pose to law and order. Federal officers also need to be equipped with information technology skills to allow them to locate various cyber criminals who use the internet to defraud business organizations and individuals.

This approach will enable law enforcement officers to use more effective strategies to resolve different types of crimes (Hauck, & Peterke, 2010, p. 429). Information sharing between different security agencies in the country should be encouraged. This will allow law enforcement officers to prosecute more criminal suspects to reduce crime rates.

References

Hauck, P. & Peterke, S. (2010). Organized crime and gang violence in national and international law. International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (878), 407-436.

Mallory, S.L. (2007). Understanding organised crime. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

The USA Patriot Act refers to legislation created in the United States Congress through an act which was enacted into law by the president at that time called George W. Bush. This occurred on October 26, 2001. This law was acting as a rejoinder to the terrorist ambush on September 11, 2001, and greatly lifted any limitations on the agencies charged with enforcing the law and those collecting intelligence within the country.

The law also increased the Secretary of the Treasury’s power to control any financial operations especially those which incorporate foreign personalities and widened the prudence of agencies enforcing the law as well as immigration bodies in controlling and deporting foreigners who were believed to engage in acts of terrorism.

This law additionally widened the description of terrorism to incorporate domestic terrorism hence increasing the nature of activities that the USA Patriot Act’s widened law regulatory powers could accommodate.

During the tenure of George W. Bush as the president, draft legislation was formed. It was referred to as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. This draft was developed by the United States Department of Justice under the leadership of the Attorney General then called John Ashcroft.

The Center for Public Integrity got a copy of this draft and had it put up on its website. However, this was never taken to the United States Congress. If it had, this act would have increased the authority of the United States Federal government and concurrently limit any judicial review of the same authorities.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted into law on November 25, 2002. It was developed following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as well as additional anthrax spiked mailings to different people. This act was also supported by at least 118 legislators of the United States Congress. It was subsequently enacted into law by the then President George Bush.

The Homeland Security Act led to the creation of the United States Department of Homeland Security as well as the newly formed cabinet level vacancy of the Secretary of Homeland Security. It is considered as the greatest federal government restructuring after the creation of the Department of Defense. This act also incorporates many of the agencies through which the mandates of the USA Patriot Act are carried out.

The newly formed department took on many roles as well as services, offices, and other agencies that were previously controlled by other departments. Such departments that had previously controlled several agencies include the Customs Service, Coast Guard, and the United States Secret Service. It surpassed but never got to replace the Office of Homeland Security. Office of Homeland Security largely maintained its advisory position (Department of Homeland Security, 2002).

The evolution of crime fighting may affect social policy from national and international perspectives. From the national front, it may require that policies be formed uniformly to combat the nature of criminal atrocities faced. Policies will be created with the intention of firstly safeguarding the national interests above anything else. On the international perspective, various protocols will have to be created regarding the interaction between nations as regards dealing with international relations as well as fighting crime (Schmalleger, 2012).

Evolving technologies relate to national and international policy making in several ways. First, nations take consideration of which technology to be used in controlling a certain aspect of dealing with international crime. This has to go hand in hand with the common interests of all nations involved and not just one party. Hence, policymaking is affected in the sense that all countries involved have to benefit (Gambino, 2009).

References

Department of Homeland Security. (2002). The Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Gambino, P. (2009). Technology in Fighting Crimes: Its Implications. New York: Sage Publications.

Schmalleger, F. (2012). Criminology today: An integrative introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall