Category: Criminal Behavior

The Arguments against the Classics of Criminology Gender and Crime

There are various explanations offered by criminologists when it comes to gender and crime. One of the most influential explanations comes from Lombroso and Ferrero. Over the years, different theorists have criticised theories created by classics of criminology for being too simplistic and have offered alternative explanations. Feminists critique the theories on the basis that crime is seen as something that men do- men studying men, and as a result women are treated as a specialty. There have been further criticisms for ignoring the differences in the experiences of various social groups.This includes inequalities within race and gender, for example the queer experiences and the hierarchy of masculinities. Overall the criticisms come from the understanding that the explanation involves a lot more intersections and complexities than traditional criminologists offer.

This essay will discuss the main theories proposed by the classics of criminology and explore the criminological and alternative critiques against the theories.

The most influential theories in relation to gender and crime come from Lombroso. Lombroso and Ferrero (1914) identified criminals from their physical stigmata and claimed that individuals with the identified characteristics had an increased propensity for being a criminal (Rock, 2007: Lombroso-Ferrero, 1914). They identified physical features from investigating prisoners and patients in psychiatric institutions which was used to confirm the theory. The features within the criminal classification were, a small skull, large eye socket, asymmetrical face, unusually sized ears , lower forehead , lump on lower part of head (Lombroso, 2019). He called the abnormalities found in born criminals, atavistic characteristics. This said that the characteristics found in criminals appear in early primitive humans, they are seen as throwbacks of the early stages of mankind and that these abnormalities were innate and difficult to resist, causing the individuals to commit crimes (Lombroso, 2019). This theory claims that criminality is inherited and individuals are born criminal and from a biological point of view, implies that a person couldn’t become a real criminal if they didn’t have the specific characteristics outlined.

A critique of this theory stems from criminologists who argue that very few theories attempt to explain the reasons for the disparity between male and female crime. It is critiqued on the biologically reductionist nature of the theory and its failure to consider the impact of nature and socialisation on criminality. Parsons and Sutherland are influential for being one of the first to make a distinction between masculinity and femininity and identify the differences in male and female crime through their engagement in sex-role theory. For example Sutherland (1947), argues that criminal behaviour is learned in the same way that any other response is and that instead of it being an innate drive , it is a product of the interactions. He argues that boys are more likely to be delinquent because they aren’t controlled as strictly through formal and informal socialisations. For example they are encouraged to be risk takers and are exposed to situations where criminality becomes a possibility. He proposes a theory of differential association which states that a person is likely to become criminal if he or she receives an excess of definitions favourable to the violations of law over unfavourable definitions (Sutherland, 1947). These may vary in frequency and duration, priority and intensity but childhood socialisation to Sutherland (1947) is more important than other points in life (Matsuedea, 2010: Sutherland 1947). This suggests that a formula can be derived from the theory to predict whether a person will commit a crime. Parsons (1937) further adds that the family is the heart of the unit and is where children learn their gender roles. He argues that women learn nurturing characteristics and men learn to be the breadwinner which reflects the gendered notion of maleness. These theories provide an alternative explanation for crime, one that considers the impact of socialisation and identifies the differences between masculinity and femininity in a way that biological explanations fail to account for.

Feminists have frequently criticised criminology for its lack of gender analysis and the fact that even when women are studied, it is in a limited manner. Feminists like Carlen argue about the visibility of women and in 1985 stated that women in criminological studies have always been presented as other, rather than real criminals. This can be seen in the fact that Lombroso’s ‘Criminal Woman’ came out many years after the publishing of ‘The criminal man’ . Another critique comes from Carol Smart (1978) who rejects Lombroso and Ferrero’s (1914) positivist account stating that their theories are based on a misconception on the nature of women which is rooted in biological determinism. She argues that their claims are based on the popular view that women don’t commit crime form cognitive responses but rather physiological basis. Further, she argues that criminology and the sociology of deviance must become more than the study of men and criminality if it is to play a significant part in the development of our understanding. Therefore whilst Lombroso does discuss female crime in an era where females were ignored altogether, his explanations suggest a female criminal that demonstrates an inversion of all of the qualities which distinguish ‘normal women’ namely reserve apathy.

The explanation for female crime proposed by Lombroso can also be criticised on various scientific grounds. Feminist empiricists claim that criminologists, such as Lombroso, don’t consider the effects of their own biases and viewpoints when deciding their research method and subjects. As a result , they offer what they consider a more scientific understanding of women through documenting their lives both as offenders and victims. They object to the empirical claims made about women which are more often than not, approached with prejudice and a lack of evidence. Ann smith (1962) in her study finds that on a whole, the accounts made by Lombroso and Ferrero (1914) offer little evidence to prove that the physical size and developed of the skill actually has an influence on the propensity of female crime (1962:5). There are claims that the work put forward was abstracted empiricism that had no form of theoretical commitment and the control groups used were a mix of different types of people including wrongly convicted inmates (Rock, 2007). Further, from his own research on English inmates, Charles Goring (1913) was able to prove that there are no significant physical differences between criminals and non criminals. Finally, the distinction between criminal and non criminal is politically problematic as the allusion to a biological predisposition suggests that there is no chance of recovery for an offender and further allows individuals who don’t fall into the identified categories, to be overlooked. One example which can be seen in the case of Ted Bundy who was overlooked as a criminal because he had symmetrical features outside of those not outlined by Lombroso.

Standpoint feminism claims that classics of criminology often take the standpoint of men, which can be seen as a function of power, and as a result women are forced to create their own explanations of the criminal experience. Carol Smart (1990) argues that an account by feminists who are fighting a struggle against oppression is a more complete explanation than the perspective of the men who are ruling. She states that it offers a more accurate version of the reality. Standpoint feminists argue for an understanding of the crime from the perspective of those which are socially subjugated. Further, Carlen (1983) in her ethnographic research of 4 women who partake in lawbreaking actions uses standpoint theory in her research when trying to understand the rationality behind female crime. She allows them to be the authors of their stories in an attempt for society to realise that the crimes of women are serious and require more cognition than male theories of gender and crime, seem to let on. The standpoint approach offers more insight into the specific realities of the various disadvantages and oppression that women face, an experience that couldn’t be specifically acknowledged from a male standpoint. This is something that both biological theorists like Lombroso (2019), and social theories like Parson (1937) and Sutherland (1947), are unable to account for.

However, while standpoint feminism can be praised for offering personal insight into the female criminality, the theory has been criticised by black and third world criminologists for generalising the category of a woman. It is argued that there is a hegemony of feminism which focuses on white women assuming that women as a category share the same experiences and view of the world often negating to consider the intersections of women such as class and race and the fact that experiences differ between these groups. Thus, they fail to ‘examine gender In the context of other locations of inequality’ (Burgess-Proctor , 2006: 34).

Critical race scholars such as Carbado and Roithamayr (2014) believe there is a continuous dialectic relationship between race and crime which can be seen in modern society and the way that crime is often associated with black people and vice versa (Phillips and Bowling ,2003). This can also be seen in the rhetoric of otherness and non-whiteness being seen as a threat.

Race scholars criticise classic theorists like Lombroso on the lack of theorising on the complexity of race and focusing on a positivist lens of quantification (Bosworth et al 2008 , Parmar, 2016).

Lombroso and the rise of positivism has long been criticised for being intrinsically racist. Lombroso (2019 ) claimed that Mongolian characteristics and features found in black people were also an indication of criminality. It was said that thieves were notable for their expressive faces, thick and close eyebrows, beards and hair (Lombroso, 2019). While the article was later retracted, the features identified have been used in research by Hashemi and Hall (2020) who discuss the capability of identifying potential criminals by facial recognition. Modern facial recognition, which is notorious for its increased likelihood to misidentify people of colour, has been triggered by Lombroso’s criminal type and this raises certain moral problems. Aside from the misidentification of individuals there are various potential social and political consequences of the positivist approach (Colajanni, 1999). Links can be made between the idea of the ‘criminal beast’ that reigned through the colonialist period, and Lombroso’s conclusions. Post-colonialism, the suggestion that born criminals have certain facial features can foster discrimination and intensify harm towards particular groups of people. It is likely to have had sinister consequences for people who were criminalised and punished, many of which may have been innocent, as a result of the findings. This is further legitimised by the actual publication of the theory which deems it as academic, science and thus a universal truth, therefore justifying discriminatory actions by law enforcement agencies as they consider the claims to be authority. A contemporary example which can be seen in the over criminalisation of black males with research showing that nearly half of all African American men will have been arrested for a non traffic violation by their 23rd birthday (Taylor et al, 2018 :Brame et al, 2014). As Virdee (2019:6) notes, it is important we consider the colonial contexts within history, including the racial domination and violence that pervaded the time. The conclusions reached by Lombroso (2019) are argued to be nothing more than a racist theory put forward under the guise of developing the field.

Since the theories of classics of criminology, gender has been a growing platform within the discipline and other intersectional research has led to the recognition of different types of gender identity. This has resulted in the deconstructing of our understanding of sex and gender and how it is performed in our society.

One of such research finds that masculinity is socially constructed and performed in many different ways that isn’t biological. Morgan (1992) locates the issue of masculinity and crime in gender relations. Many crimes involve an expression of masculinity for example joyriding and burglary. Connell. (2009:9) argues that masculinity is institutionalised in structures and relations both large and small. She proposes a hierarchy of masculinity which has a continuum of masculinity from one end to the other. It is suggested that hegemonic masculinity is the ideal type of masculinity and is how people claim a position of power in society. Developing on from the work of Connell (2009), Messerschmidt (1993) identifies the way in which expressions of masculinity constitute a continuous thread of behaviour from street crime to white collar crime.Therefore classic criminology can be criticised for its gender blindness and reluctance to ask why not all men offend. The gendered understanding of criminology calls into question the idea of what it is to be male, the construction of being men and their relationship with, and their expression of their masculinity, an aspect that the classics of criminology fail to explore

Further critique comes from queer theorists who argue that criminology has often put criminal and homosexuality together in research (Groombridge, 1999). Brown (1986) has critiqued certain aspects of Lombroso’s writings for oversimplifying the role of biological sex differences. The gender and sex stereotypes have been argued to have had a role in the way that Lombroso treated different LGBTQ groups ( Woods, 2015). For Lombroso, homosexual men which he called ‘Pederasts’ emerged as a group of criminals who were biologically inferior and perverse, and lesbians which he called ‘Tribadismo’ were rarely discussed ( Woods, 2015). In doing this, Lombroso’s typology assumed that deviant sexuality in men defined their criminality (Woods, 2015)

Groombridge (2012:331) writes that homosexuality has haunted criminology from the pathologies of positivist of Lombroso to the appreciative ethnographies of social deviance. Early criminology saw that those displaying characteristics of homosexuality were considered as defective species that required curing and treatment. Research in all fields of criminology lacks focus on LGBTQ people. Ferrero and Sanders (1995:318) makes the point that criminology ‘needs to be able to understand the criminal worlds of lesbians and gays’ and that lesbian and gay subcultures have developed codes of conduct. Classics within criminology make straight assumptions within the discipline without engaging in the wider issues that surround queer theory (Ball , 2014). Thus, we are urged to look at the complexity of sexuality within the research of gender despite how difficult it may make things (Groombridge,1999).

Further critique in the biologically deterministic approach can be drawn from the fact that there are various interpretations of crime. The most commonly used definition of crime is to view it as an infraction of the criminal law that leads to certain consequences often taking the form of prosecution or punishment (Collins, 2020). Crime is a social construct and a contested subject. It is influenced by society and experiences, the positions of those defining crime, as well as the cultural and historical context in which laws and offences are created. Crime, the idea of crime and criminal behaviour is an expression of popular views as to what constitutes right and wrong behaviour. The consensus within society regarding what is wrong or unacceptable often affects the law. Various examples can be drawn when analysing the historical punishment of women. The cangue, ducking stool, the scold’s bridle and various other mechanisms were used to punish women who were considered to be disorderly and served the purpose of both physically and symbolically silencing women. Additionally, we only know about certain crimes through the media. Chambliss (2002) theorises the media as a giant myth-making machine (Potter, 2019). Further evidence can be seen in Hall et al’s (1978) ‘Policing the crisis’ which demonstrates the construction of mugging and the way in which it and black crime influenced people’s views within wider aspects of society such as politics and economics within the 1970’s. To conclude, although there may be some biological correlation between people who choose to partake in what we define as ‘acts of deviance’, general conclusions shouldn’t be drawn as crime is not a universal concept and so biological similarities found under one definition of crime may not be present in another.

Lombroso is considered to be the father of criminology and for the longest time, his theory and classifications were unquestioned by many and taken to be authority. The effect of his findings can still be seen in some aspects of present society. However different theorists have criticised the approach on various grounds. These criticisms include social theorists who propose alternatives to looking at gender and crime, such as the effect of socialisation and the family unit; scientific criticisms questioning the credibility of the research and methodology including standpoint feminists who argue against men doing research on women due to their biases; and other feminists who critique the lack of visibility of women in theories and the fact that when criminal women are mentioned, they are seen as something that is unconventional as opposed to a norm or the standard. Further criticism comes when considering the intersectionality of gender, race and sexuality. Traditional criminology rejects the socially marginal such as women, black and non-binary confirming individuals, and paints them as deviants or other.

Race theorists critique it on its innate racism in the classification of criminal characteristics which has very dangerous social and political consequences. It can often be used in a discriminatory nature and be used to justify actions by local authorities.. This is especially dangerous when the socially constructed nature of crime and various historical and cultural contexts are taken into account. In their arguments against the heteronormativity of criminology, queer theorists seek to expose its heterosexist nature and argue that in ignoring queer identities, criminologists operate under the assumption of universalism representing normality and the construction of theories as universal. Overall research of gender and crime has proven to be much more complex than is offered by the classics of criminology who tend to overlook the differences that exist between certain groups of people. However, it is important that the different experiences and inequalities are properly acknowledged within research in order to fully understand their relation to criminological issues.

The Impact Of Crime And Restorative Justice

For the purpose of this assignment I will be looking at how restorative justice can be used following specific crimes, also it will discuss the psychological and social impact of crime for a victim.

Restorative Justice connects both the victim of a crime and the perpetrator who inflicted that crime together. The implementation of this enables everyone affected by an incident to participate in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward. It is available to victims at all stages of the criminal justice system and should not be denied no matter what offence has been committed against them. Both the Victim and Offender can make informed choices on their participation.

Restorative justice is used by allowing both parties to gain an understanding of each other and the aim is to work towards forgiveness and possible reintegration of the offender back into their community. This process can in some cases help the surrounding community to feel a sense of security as they are able to witness the offender’s completion of the program. It is important that individuals understand the objectives of restorative justice, and its intent on providing equal opportunities for victims and offenders to discuss their situation. The offender should have an equal participative role, the facilitator should be attentive and receptive, it is important to see if there is any remorse, motivation to change and an understanding of the impact of the offender’s actions.

Zehr and Mika (2003) describe the restorative justice process as a way to repair relationships and put right the wrongs, so victims are the start point. The victim are supported to take part in the process, to help reinforce the impact of the crime they fell victim to. Hoyle et al, (2002) found that victim participation can be low, although most who attended restorative meetings were said to respond positively saying that they felt different about the offender after. De Mesmaecker (2010) suggested that the influence of media in restorative justice can be perceived to only focus on the victims, with no mention of the offender which portrays this as a negative way forward.

The restorative justice process is a way to encompass key principles; these are described by Van Ness and Strong (1997) as being encounter, reparation, reintegration and participation. This opportunity enables offenders to apologise and take account for their actions. Braithwaite (1989) suggests that this process is seen to be a ‘police cautioning’ for the offender without being degrading and more of a re-integrative ceremony this is seen as their second chance.

The restorative process has been seen to be effective in response to low level youth offending, where the public interest does not require a formal criminal justice disposal. This can form part of an Acceptable Behaviour Contract and offer a resolution to reoccurrence of offending behaviour in schools and children’s homes. (CPS.gov.uk, 2019) Overall it can reduce court and imprisonment costs and for adult offenders it may be a diversion from incarceration.

As Sherman (1993) suggests in the deviance theory often criminals convince themselves they have not acted in an immoral manner and restorative justice can engage guilty parties to consider their actions, reflect and transform their own conduct. He alludes that crime may be decreased if courts and law enforcement treats all citizens with respect and an unprejudiced view with regard to punishments.

There is the potential for restorative justice to be used for a variety of crime, in some crimes this may cause potential challenges such as in sexual offences, hate crime and domestic violence although in these kind of offences it can still been seen to help. It works best when there is a personal victim although this is where challenges can be met when the perpetrator is known to the victim. For higher risk victim’s restorative justice may not be suitable as it could reflect that they are more vulnerable and could provide an opportunity potential revenge and intimidation from the offender.

Miller and Mullins (2009) advocate that there are potential hazards using restorative justice for crime such as domestic and gendered violence, as in general it can be a recurrent offence and be a combination of sexual and physical abuse. This can be seen as violation of trust by the victim and a failure perceived by the family or community failed to protect the victim. Frederick and Lizdas (2003) implied that the process does not always account for one of the main characteristics of the majority of domestic violence cases; the existence of on-going danger and can be always at risk from the perpetrator’s control and battery.

For both the offender and victim crime can also negatively impact on the social well-being. The victim may have long term issues following the impact of crime, such as being afraid to go out alone, fear of being watched, guilt or blame and even on going mental health, issues such as PTSD. PTSD has been found to be more prevalent in rape victims following rape by a stranger, use of physical force, display of weapons, and victim injury (Davis GC & Breslau N. 1994)

Controversially it has been suggested within the Victim precipitation theory that victims may initiate a crime being carried against them. Schafer (1968) describes a victim as being provocative towards an offender, with characteristics that can lead to a person choosing to commit a crime against someone. This could be seen as the way a victim was clothed or the route they were walking that night suggesting the victim is as guilty and as much responsibility to the crime as an offender. Amir (1967) suggested in a around sexual assault it is often viewed that a manner of dress or behaviour is seen as a sexual invitation. Victim advocates see this as an undermining value towards a victim whereas Schafer (1968) suggested that the victim’s part played in the crime should be addressed in relation to offender sentencing. Whereas Eigenberg et al. (2008) proposes a crime may have taken place regardless of the victim’s actions, also there are also many cases where the crime would not have occurred, if it was not for the actions of the victim. The theory and its judgements are said not to excuse the offender, more of a study of precipitation offering a full accounting of the offender’s responsibility in the crime. The theory is portrayed to help understand issues relating to offender motivation and intent.

Similarly, the Deviant Place Theory suggests that a person is more inclined to become the victim of a crime when exposed to dangerous areas. Such as a mugger is more likely to mark and target a person walking alone after dark in a bad neighbourhood. The more a person chooses to frequent into bad neighbourhoods where violent crime is common entity, the greater the risk of victimization. Another consideration is that low-income households are more likely to be located in or near dangerous areas of town. making it harder individuals from poor socioeconomic backgrounds to move away from dangerous areas.

Cohen and Felson (1979) lifestyle theory links to this as it articulates that certain people may become the victims of crimes because of their lifestyles and choices. Examples include walking alone at night or wearing expensive jewellery predisposing yourself to become a victim of crime all a common pattern that goes unchanged. They believed for a crime to occur it requires three fundamental elements, a motivated offender who will act on their criminal intentions, a victim and the absence of a responsible guardian to prevent crime from happening and deter individuals. The theory goes on to allude that crime is a normal practice and dependability on available opportunities to offend. If an unprotected target is seen and there are rewards, a highly motivated offender will commit a crime. Routine activities theory is ordinarily used to explain why youths are at a heightened risk of being involved in offending behaviour and of being victimized. The demographics of an individual will be influential on their own daily activities, such as being out at night and mixing with criminals and taking part in activities such as drug taking as a consequence their routine and lifestyle choices predispose them to victimization. Cohen and Felson (1979) suggested with this theory that for an offender carrying out a crime this may give them the lime light and acceptance they are wanting such as a gang ritual and can strengthen any negative behaviours.

These individuals have the same values, beliefs and attitudes as law abiding civilians but learn as juveniles to neutralize these values. Sykes and Matza (1976) ascertain within the Neutralization Theory that delinquents disregard any controlling influences of rules and use neutralization techniques to weaken and broke a hold on society. If society has used a bias it can go onto teach these individuals that getting ahead by any means is all that matters which becomes thrill seeking Their behaviour will negate between law abiding and breaking the law, whereas other theories suggest that individuals break the law exclusively with no committal to the law. Following a crime there is denial of any wrong doing and if no one was harmed it can be deemed as victimless (Matza, 2004)

To conclude empirical work on theories surrounding crime and restorative justice approaches are seen to be ever changing. Undoubtedly restorative justice has been seen to enhance victim satisfaction. The programmes offered give offenders the chance to take responsibility for their actions and repair harm through restitution. offenders who partake in restorative justice programs have reported moderate increases in satisfaction compared to offenders in the traditional system offering a more positive outcome. It can offer a more substantial appearance to public safety and the management of offenders.

If restorative justice is implemented correctly it can be beneficial to both the offender and the victim and give them both a way forward. A key resolution is to offer restorative justice to all criminal offences, allow restorative justice meetings to be delivered in all areas of the criminal justice system, and raise awareness among the general public and among key agencies within the criminal justice system with ongoing facilities of an environment which is favourable to restorative justice. By supporting the process, increasing the flow of cases and information it can provide opportunities for all.

References

1. Amir M (1967). Victim precipitated forcible rape. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science. 58 (4) 493-502
2. CPS (2019) Restorative Justice https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/restorative-justice
3. Cohen, L. E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44:588–608.
4. Davis GC, Breslau N. (1994) Post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of civilian trauma and criminal violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 17(2):289-99. PMID: 7937360.
5. De Mesmaecker, V. (2010). Building social support for restorative justice through the media: is taking the victim perspective the most appropriate strategy? Contemporary Justice Review, 13, 239-267. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2010.498225
6. Eigenberg H, Garland T (2008) Victim blaming. In: Moriarty LJ (Eds), Controversies in Victimology, Anderson Publishing, USA, p. 21-36.
7. Frederick, L. and Lizdas K. 2003. The role of restorative justice in the battered women’s
8. movement. Minneapolis: [Online: Battered Women’s JUSTICE Project].
9. Hoyle et al (2006). Youth Crime and Justice. Liverpool: Pine forge press. pg 114.
10. Matza,D. (2004) . Neutralization Theory: Learning Rationalizations as motives. In M.M Lanier, Essential Criminology ,Boulder : Westview press 169-176.
11. Miller, J. and Mullins, C. 2009. Feminist Theories of Girls’ Delinquency in The Delinquent Girl edited by M. Zahn. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
12. Restorative Justice Council (2016) About Restorative Justice https://restorativejustice.org.uk/about-restorative-justice#:~:text=Restorative%20justice%20can%20potentially%20be%20used%20for%20any,example%20sexual%20offences%2C%20hate%20crime%20and%20domestic%20violence.
13. Schafer S (1968) Victimology: The victim and his criminal. Reston Publishing Company, USA.
14. SHERMAN, L. W. (1993) ‘Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the Criminal Sanction’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), pp. 445–473. doi: 10.1177/0022427893030004006.
15. Sykes,G.M and Matza,D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization. A theory of delinquency. American Sociological R/V, 22,664-670.

Hate Crimes: Causes And Solutions

Hate crimes in society today have been evident through the news even within local communities. As stated in Hate Crime Statistics, “In 2016 7,615 people were affected by a hate crime a 168 percent rise from 10 years ago,” (FBI Victims). If this keeps growing no one of a different race will be safe within America or even their own communities. According to Damon Karson, a hate crime analyst,”Hate crimes have targeted more groups, especially LGBT, Jews, and blacks,” (Karson, Damon). This shows in America hate crimes have now expanded and affected more groups and people. As maintained by the Religious Action Center, “The report detailed over 1,500 religion-based offenses with 1,013 of them (over 66%) directed against Jews and Jewish institutions,” (Hate Crimes). Religions receive the most hate crimes as many people in America believe in one or no religions. In summary America’s hate crimes have become clear and now affecting communities and people all around us.

Causes hate crimes started in America

Secondly, these problems subsequently lead to causes as people started to become belligerent wanting revenge on the person or group who committed the crime. In the words of Karson, “Demonstrations around the country drew large crowds most importantly, groups like the Gay Liberation Front formed,” (Karson, Damon). Once hate crimes became largely impactful groups introduced campaigns to help support their cause leading to incredible support. The Religious Action Center stated,¨Legislation serves as a deterrent to those individuals who choose to act on their hatred by imposing stricter penalties against perpetrators of these crimes,¨ (Hate Crimes). Now juries are creating harsher punishments for people who committed a hate crime. As crimes are violent and often started out of only pure hate. Hate Rights Campaign claimed that,¨A 2007 Gallup poll exhibited that 68 percent of Americans favored expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity,¨ (Hate Crimes Laws). This displayed that America now supports people of different lifestyles, and wants them to be protected from the violence of modern day America. According to the Washington Post ¨The manufacturing industry collapsed, and economic inequality widened, making life more financially precarious for many white men. Then when they turn on the television, the faces they see are no longer as white as they once were,¨ (Berman, Mark). This presented how simple problems cause them to act upon people of different beliefs in violent unnecessary ways. To sum up, causes can be large or small, but any causes positive or negative could lead more people into supporting this issue.

Solutions for the stopping the hate

Finally, to help support and limit hate crimes people must create solutions. As the Southern Poverty Law Center suggests,¨Do something. In the face of hatred, apathy will be interpreted as acceptance by the perpetrators, the public and worse the victims. Community members must take action; if we don’t, hate persists,¨ (Ten Ways to Fight Hate). People standing up to their haters might show victims are not so vulnerable, and will defend what they believe in. Not simply letting themselves be profiled and treated poorly. Following this statement, Karson Damon announced,¨ The First Amendment Defense Act was introduced in 2015 If enacted, the bill would prohibit the federal government from penalizing businesses that decide not to provide services to LGBT individuals on the basis of these types of moral and religious beliefs, (Karson, Damon). This is one act or law being set in place to help make America equal for anyone of any belief or lifestyle, and allow them to enjoy their life as any other person would. As stated by the Religious Action Center,¨

Although the stricter punishment is critical, the goal of hate crimes laws is often tied to the idea of educating perpetrators, law enforcement officers, and the general public about the scourge of hate in our society,¨ (Hate Crimes). This could be a simple solution for many of the irrelevant hate crimes though it might not affect the hate crimes against a whole race of people or large group. Nextly the Southern Poverty Law Center suggested,¨Reach out to allies from churches, schools, clubs, and other civic groups. Create a diverse coalition. Include children, police, and the media. Gather ideas from everyone, and get everyone involved,¨ (Ten Ways to Fight Hate). In America today hundreds of thousands have gathered to together for many issues including hate crimes as an attempt to gain support. Finally, the SPLC again recommended,¨If you’re a victim, report every incident in detail and ask for help. If you learn about a hate crime victim in your community, show support. Let victims know you care. Surround them with comfort and protection,¨ (Ten Ways to Fight Hate). Support is important to help the recovery process to show they’re strong, and will not let someone affect them. In closing, support is one of the large ways of showing strength, especially in numbers as the victims are praised for their heroism.

Analysis of the Results of Research on Causes of Criminal Activity

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to understand the perspective that young people have on the causes of crime. Living in a world where we now just accept that crime exists and anyone who commits a crime is simply sentenced, we tend to ignore the main factors of a committed crime. I have used a multi-method technique to examine the causes of crime and its importance on criminal activity as I believe that the government forces often avoid the analysis of why these crimes are committed. The study, from Christopher Blattman of Columbia University and Jeannie Annan from the International Rescue Committee, assesses whether employment can reduce criminal activity. They believe that ‘peaceful work opportunities will deter [high-risk men] from crime and violence.’ This then creates a line of argument that perhaps if more job opportunities were given, potential criminals could turn from this idea to commit crime.

Literature review

Italian criminologist, Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), theorised that crime was an inborn characteristic, in that, it is in the nature of a person to commit crime, not nurture. Lombroso viewed criminality as an inheritance, and that criminals could be identified by physical attributes such as hawk-like noses and bloodshot eyes. Lombroso found that a criminals’ skull differs: ‘At the sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal – an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primary humanity and the inferior animals.’ The strengths of Lombroso’s theory were that he examined more than just the crime, instead he examined the criminals’ physical and mental state in which he formed a pattern in criminals, rather than their crimes. However, we may critique Lombroso’s theory as he got most of his work from within prisons, and already existing criminals. This fails to back up his theory as his evidence is based on such a small and specific proportion of people. Perhaps, if Lombroso had done the same research outside of prisons, he would have realised that non-criminals may also hold these characteristics that he labels onto only criminals. On the other hand, the James Bulger case (12th February 1993): ‘two ten-year-old boys abducted two-year-old James Bulger from a shopping centre – two days later he was found battered to death by a railway line’ (Rice and Thomas, 2013) suggests that upbringing plays a huge role in young people’s tendency to perform in criminal activity. At its first account, the public described these two boys as ‘devil boys’ (Daily Mail 23rd January (2010) and believed that they committed such vile crime, simply, because they wanted to. However, it was later investigated and found that both suspects of this crime had parents who had separated, difficulties at school, and were neglected by their parents. So, could their criminal behaviour be a reflection of what they felt as children? Pain.

Operationalizing

Criminal activities within young people and their views on the causes of crime have been my key areas of interest in my studies. It is a very broad issue that I found to be both interesting and relatable by many researchers. The causes of crime, as defined by Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), the born criminal, is a very concealed understatement pinned to criminals. Despite many research being made around this theory, there isn’t strong enough evidence to finalise this theory. Further research such as the James Bulger case () indicates that there are other factors which influence criminal behaviour. It is important to draw a clear line between very thin theories and academic based research. I have used in-depth interviews with both criminals and non-criminals, and document analysis as an attempt to explore the true explanation behind the causes of crime, and how young people would explain this.

Ethics

As the research process involves sensitive topics, ethics plays a huge role in protecting any participants involved in my research. In conducting this research, the ethical process was followed as instructed by City University’s Ethics Committees. Before conducting my research via interviews, each participant was provided with a participant information sheet (see Appendix A). A consent form was also given to all participants to obtain evidenced consensus and created an understanding for the participants of how their data is conducted in my research (see Appendix B). Identifying the sensitivity of the subject, a small conversation was also carried out at the end of each interview to reduce any disconcerting feelings that the participants may have had during the interview.

Methods

In order to gather further research on my studies, I have used two main methods: interviews and document analysis as a strategy of getting a more in-depth insight into young people’s views on the causes of crime, and as an act to challenge whether their views suit theorists such as Cesare Lombroso or whether they bring out different interpretations. I conducted interviews at the beginning of my studies in order to form an overview of young people who have both engaged in criminal activity and those who have not to compare what caused those who are ex-criminals to drive them into criminality and why those who are non-criminals felt no need to commit crime. The interviews consisted of simple worded questions to avoid any discomfort to my interviewees but at the same time descriptive enough to gather the right information needed for my studies. Document analysis was then conducted as my second method of research through observing conversations between young students on their views of the causes of crime. This was a successful option for me as here, students were able to speak openly knowing that their identity was completely hidden and that nobody could judge or question their views. Therefore, these accounts were very unbiased and true to own thoughts and feelings. Being interviewed for instance, may cause the interviewee(s) to change their views or opinions on a subject simply due to the fear of being judged or getting themselves into an uncomfortable situation.

Findings

Data collected from my interviews and document analysis were transcribed and analysed in order to form any patterns, themes, relationships, sequences and differences within each conducted form of research. I used thematic analysis in order to code my data into two different themes: criminals’ thoughts towards the causes of crime and non-criminal interpretations of the causes of crime. The purpose of this style of analysis was to gather a general representation of the data and to then be able to form reliable interpretations from it. From my interpretations, there was three main themes on the causes of crime: upbringing, the born criminal and the police not doing enough for the community. Gary, my first interviewee struck me to be the most interesting interview to transcribe into my studies as he strongly states ‘We would always talk about imagine being suited up and working at a 9-5 job right now but that’s not what life had planned out for us.’ Such a powerful phrase created this line of argument that, if families brought up their children in caring and loving environments, this is what the children would reflect back in their lives. In other words, children grow up mirroring what they see from their family. Therefore, those who have been neglected, abandoned or abused by their families enforce these same actions later in their lives and believe that this is the direction that their families pushed them into. This idea is consistent with suggestions from other young students who believe ‘lone parent families = child more likely to commit crime. There are plenty of studies that actually look in detail at this area, and the consensus is clear – the absence of a farther in particular, leads to a statistically significant increase in the chance of the child participating in criminal activity’ (The Student Room, 2018).

The second theme being ‘the born criminal’ emerged very early on from criminologist Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) in which his theory was clearly outdated by more in-depth answers and research as to why people are driven towards criminal activity. Science now proves that criminality cannot be simplified to an inherited characteristic. In further exploring, the third theme emerges from the idea that the police/government forces are not doing enough to prevent crimes in which young people think, why not commit a crime, we won’t get caught anyway. Conducted from The Student Room, a young student argues: ‘liberal idiot politicians like Theresa May or Sajid Javid are more than happy for hundreds of poor people to be stabbed to death to prove how tolerant and inclusive they are, whilst they live in gated communities.’ This strong argument builds on the idea that young people view the government to be protecting only themselves away from crimes that affect them and turn a blind eye to the crimes that are affecting the wider society. Additionally, students seemed to believe that the police only stop and search specific race and gendered youngsters, meaning that they are letting many other criminals walk by them simple because, they do not look like criminals. The question is: what does a criminal even look like? If Cesare Lombroso’s theory is argued to be so thin, why do police officers still enforce this idea of identifying a criminal based on their looks?

Conclusion

From my studies, I come to the conclusion that the main theme of the causes of criminal activity comes from upbringing. This is because children are more likely to be pushed into this kind of behaviour due to a lack of family support more than the idea to commit a crime simply because they believe they may get away with it. Difficult circumstances definitely play a huge role in the commitment to criminal activity as it is those situations that challenge the human mind into doing things.

Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson: Book Review

Just Mercy is an extraordinary book. Its a powerful truthful and story by Bryan Stevenson, Stevenson who is an attorney guides us through his life in Alabama and how he helps defend innocent, poor men and women on death row who were wrongly convicted. Throughout each of the cases, Stevenson shows us how messed up are system can be. In this essay, we will talk about how the system has failed some prisoners and see how racial profiling, poverty, and police mistreatment and brutality has an effect on the prisoners and citizens.

In this book, Stevenson talks about racial profiling. Racial profiling is the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offense. In the book, Stevenson talks about many people who were wrongly convicted based on race. One person being Walter McMillian. Walter McMillian was an African American man who was accused of killing Ronda Morrison. Walters’s family was devastated and knew he could not have murdered her because he was a very hardworking man and they had evidence that he was with them when the murder took place. The only evidence the police had on Walter was that he “he was an African American man involved in an adulterous interracial affair, which meant he was reckless and possibly dangerous”(pg.34). So just being black and having an interracial affair was sufficient enough evidence for them to believe Ralph Myers’s who gave a fake story to police and convicted Walter. Another example of racial profiling in the book involves the author. Stevenson during his early twenties. Stevenson was sitting in his car one night until a SWAT car came rushing down the road ad stopped right in front of him. The police came close to Stevenson’s car so he got out of the car very frightened and was going to try and walk home until they threatened “move and ill blow your head off!” (pg 40). This is an example of racial profiling because the police only believe Stevenson was threatening and unsafe because of the color of his skin. After they illegally searched through his car and found no evidence for an arrest to be taken. He was then let go and was very moved by the incident and had a better understanding of what poor, colored people struggle within Alabama. Both of these occurrences show how it is a struggle for African Americans to fit into society and how racial profiling affects their daily life.

Poverty is another great struggle people that live in Alabama and other states have to live with. Just mercy shows poverty throughout each case Stevenson has to defend. The majority of blacks and some whites living in the south are having to live on the streets and most of them don’t have medical care that they need. There were occurrences in the book where mothers can’t afford prenatal care and try to deliver their own babies which can be unsafe. for instance, Marsha Colby lived in a poor rural Alabama town with her husband where they were struggling financially. They lived in a trailer with their six children and were at risk when Hurricane Ivan hit. After the damage, Marsha found herself pregnant and she knew that pregnancy at her age was very risky But she can’t afford a doctor. After several weeks she delivered a stillborn baby and tried reviving the infant but saw he wasn’t breathing and concluded he was dead. Soon her neighbors started to notice that she wasn’t pregnant anymore so they informed the police. Marsha was then arrested and charged with capital murder She didn’t have enough money for a doctor so she sure wasn’t going to have enough for a defense lawyer. The court concluded that “the child would have survived with medical attention”(pg 231) and she was sentenced to life in prison. Not having enough money to afford hospital care shouldn’t be a worry for pregnant mothers because it is not safe and could end up having mothers wrongly convicted for killing their children.

Among other things, Stevenson shows us how police mistreatment and brutality occurs. Police mistreatment is still a problem and exists in the U.S., affecting predominantly black prisoners physically and mentally. One example Stevenson talks about in his book a client he had named Henry. This was when Stevenson was just an intern and was asked to visit Henry and tell him that his execution day was pushed back. But once Stevenson gave him the news Henry was very happy and hopeful. After a couple of hours of them talking the guard came back very angry because they have gone over the amount of time, they were given to speak. So “he roughly shackled henrys ankles. The guard was so angry he put the cuffs on too tight” (pg 11). When Stevenson saw this he became very worried and asked the guard to loosen the cuffs but the guard ignored. Many of these prisoners are poor and colored. In many of Stevenson’s cases, you can see how police mistreat the prisoners and became physically and mentally abusive.

Leading Idea from Bryan Stevenson’s Book Just Mercy: Opinion Essay

I am a sophomore at Grand Rapids Community College. I would like to address and discuss the topic of criminal justice reform in Michigan, specifically, raising the age for the automatic adult prosecution. I believe the age should be raised from seventeen to eighteen because the difference between an adult and a minor is not a thin line by any means. How can you compare a minor to an adult criminal if they can’t consume alcohol until they’re twenty-one or buy a pack of cigarettes until they’re eighteen? They also shouldn’t be imprisoned alongside adults whose decision-making skills are most likely fully developed. In defense of these minors, I would like to share an idea from Bryan Stevenson’s book Just Mercy. It’s the idea that “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve done” (Stevenson).

In Just Mercy, Stevenson dives deep into the triumphs and tribulations of working for his company the Equal Justice Initiative; a company that works on death row cases. Through Stevenson’s experience we see the harsh treatment these inmates go through, including juveniles who were sent to adult prisons. In the book, Joe Sullivan is a perfect example as to why the age should be raised. Joe was sentenced to life-without-parole imprisonment when he was just thirteen years old. Joe was wrongly accused of sexual assault and although he was still a minor, he was tried in an adult court and sent to an adult prison. There, he suffered a traumatic eighteen years of abuse and suicidal attempts. On top of that, he adopted sclerosis due to the rough conditions he endured in prison. Although Michigan may not treat their prisoners so harshly, Joe should never have been compared and treated as an adult criminal.

Another example I would like to share happened this past summer in Port Huron, Michigan. Steven Breton, a seventeen-year-old, was arrested for stealing a bicycle out of a garage (Hutchinson). First, he should have been prosecuted as a minor, especially since it was a non-violent crime. Second, the immaturity of this seventeen-year-old is evident in the crime itself so if he was to be sent to prison it should’ve been a juvenile prison. Instead, he is being held in the Macomb County Jail (Hutchinson). I hope this story emphasizes the meaning behind “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve done”. Yes, Breton committed a crime and there must be a consequence for his actions but was his punishment for the crime worth staining his record?

Again, I would like to ask you to raise the age for criminal prosecution. Seventeen-year-olds could still profit from the use of the disposition hearing in court just as much as sixteen-year-olds can. The benefits to this change would be preserving the minor’s ability to get jobs in the future and it could offer them a chance to learn from their mistakes on a smaller level.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope you will take this issue into deep consideration.

1. Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: a True Story of the Fight for Justice. Delacorte Press, 2018.
2. Hutchinson, Derick. “Police: 17-Year-Old Arrested Minutes after Stealing Bicycle from Chesterfield Township Garage.” WDIV, 29 July 2019, www.clickondetroit.com/news/police-17-year-old-arrested-minutes-after-stealing-bicycle-from-chesterfield-township-garage.

Arguments against Drunk Driving: Opinion Essay

You are a sibling, cousin, child, grandchild, partner, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, friend. Your life means something in this world. Imagine that you decided to go out, have a good time, one thing led to another and… Now you’re dead.

Your ‘friend’ was driving, it was in the middle of nowhere and now the car is totalled. He had time before the ambulance came. Time to pull your dead body into the driver’s seat because he survived and you didn’t. He didn’t want to get into trouble. You had a family, a job, a reason to live. Now all of that was taken away from you. Maybe if you both had called the Uber like your mother suggested, you’d be greeting her with a drunken smile instead of greeting her with death.

Driving under the influence is not a joke. The story I told, actually happened to someone I know and the affects can be quite harsh. Driving under the influence is when a person drives a motor-vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If you are arrested in South Africa, currently, for drunk driving, you will be granted bail under the Criminal Procedure Act, and it will be offered and granted at the police station if it is not as serious as a schedule 5 or 6. It is against the law to 1) drive a vehicle and 2) be sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle while it is running, while you are intoxicated. This is stated under The National Road Traffic Act, Act 3 of 1996 amended.

Some facts about and around the topic are:

4 in 5 people who drink are men. In November 2018, more than 800 arrests are made in connection with drunk driving. JMPD conducted more than 500 operations, yielding 50 public arrests, the discontinuation of 22 vehicles and more than 100 arrests.

Drunk driving in a high risk of safety in South Africa, 50% of the road accidents where death occurs, have a blood alcohol level of above the legal limit which is 0,05 grams/100 millilitres.

Physically, all your reactions are slowed down due to alcohol. Therefore when driving it can be a problem for if you don’t do something when its needed because you might hurt yourself. You often get sick and dizzy. Emotionally, alcohol makes you delirious and fearful.

As a new driver, I urge you to call that Uber, to assign that designated driver, to make arrangements for someone to pick you up if you are drinking so that you can greet your mom. So that you mom doesn’t have to stress that you are coming back in a body bag. Make sure to keep within your own physical limits. To not feel pressured into doing something you don’t want to just because everyone else is doing. And above all I urge you not to get behind the wheel while you’ve been drinking because you could end up killing yourself or someone else.

It is important to drive safely because you never know what might happen. You might end up hurting yourself or someone else using the roads such as a cyclist, a pedestrian or another motor-vehicle user. The benefits for all of these categories are so that you are driving alive, so that your heart is still beating and so that you won’t have the weight of killing someone on your shoulders. You can’t control how other people drive, but you can control how you drive and whether or not you’re following the rules of the road.

Theme of Criminal Appeals in Just Mercy: Analytical Essay

Most people are wrongly convicted of a crime. If there was an error, then you would want to file an appeal to a higher court as quick as possible. Any legal errors can affect the outcome of the case and can put the defendant in a tough spot. If they are convicted as guilty then the process to reverse might not be as simple. In this essay, I will talk about how a criminal appeal is very important to the outcome of a case and should be fully reviewed so that the defendant can get a fair trial.

In the article, Marquette Law Review it says, “Because criminal appeals often involve specialized appellate lawyers on both the prosecution and defense sides, the process involves repeat players to a much greater degree than is true of civil litigation” (Oldfather and O’Hear 341). This quote says that because lawyers are so good at what they do it can change the outcome of what’s supposed to happen in court. The court will favor the better lawyer even if what they talk about isn’t completely true. Relating to the book Just Mercy, it also has a part in the text where the lawyer was spreading lies and managed to convince the court that he was right. We know that later he confesses, but it isn’t right when the court favors the wrong side. There must be better evidence before you can convict the defendant of a crime. Sometimes the judges are given too much power in my opinion and that isn’t fair. The defendant feels like their voice isn’t heard because whenever they ask, they are accused of violating some rules. I also believe that an appellate court has too much control. Because a law can be taken away with one ruling from the appellate court. It feels as if they are enforcing their own laws and that’s not supposed to happen.

Researchers named Joyce Chapper and Roger Hanson did a study on intermediate appellate court outcomes in 1989. In the article, State Criminal Appeals Revealed, it says “They collected data from nearly 1,750 first appeals of right filed by defendants and resolved between 1983 and 1985 in five states’ courts, and reported defense success rates for specified claims, crime types, and types of representation” (Heise et al. 1941). With all the data they collected they found an overall defense win rate of about 20%. This shows how difficult it is to win on the defensive side. Being convicted as guilty when you haven’t don’t anything wrong isn’t fair and in an appellate court, they should really pay attention to what each other has to say.

Relating to the book Just Mercy, many people were still sent to death row or jail no matter if they didn’t do anything wrong. A man named Walter McMillian in Just Mercy was accused of murdering Ronda even though he would never commit murder. All because they suspected his previous relationship wasn’t great and that he had a history of cheating and anger issues they assumed he had murdered Ronda. Without evidence nothing should be assumed. They shouldn’t have suggested having Walter a suspect without any proof that he did commit murder. Ralph Myers was very suspicious. In the book Just Mercy, it says “When his allegations against the sheriff didn’t seem to be going anywhere, he changed his story again and told investigators that he had been involved in the murder of Vickie Pittman along with Karen Kelly and her black boyfriend, Walter McMillian. But that wasn’t all. He also told police that McMillian was responsible for the murder of Ronda Morrison” (Stevenson 33). This made law enforcement go after Walter and investigate his past. All because someone lies it can cause trouble and lead to the wrong person being locked up in jail. This resurrects the fact that criminal appeals are meant to be fully looked at so that they don’t end up putting the wrong guy in jail or even worse death row.

In the article, Efficiency and Justice and Fairness: An Empirical Analysis of Criminal Appeals in Human Province, China, it says “The majority of studies on criminal appeals reflected such diversity. For instance, many studies debated over the review power and scope of criminal appeals while other turned to empirical data to examine the nature of appellate judges’ work and explore how different factors may have affected their daily work” (Kuang and Liang 565). They debated over the fact that many judges will decide based off one’s race. Many studies talk about it, but never really came up with a way to improve systemic efficiency and defend fairness/justice.

I mentioned before evidence is important because without it, they can’t accuse you of anything. If there is evidence, you will be fine. Hopefully the court realizes that they need evidence to sentence someone and that one’s race shouldn’t be a factor when determining the outcome of a trial. In the same article it says, “For instance, whether defendants’ race/ethnic background, as a non-legal factor, has affected appellate judges’ decision-making is definitely an issue of justice and fairness and whether appellate judges be allowed to expand their review scope concerns both defendants’ due process rights as well as the efficiency of the system” (Kuang and Liang 566). The system will never be fixed if appellate judges continue their bad and unjust ways. An appellate judge must be fair to everyone equally and use the facts presented in front of them to determine a decision.

In conclusion, criminal appeals are important to a defendant because it allows a right to appeal and helps when correcting errors made by trial courts. There are many errors that happened throughout history, and it put innocent people in tough situations. Biased appellate judges don’t even give the defendant a say in the matter. In my opinion we need to get rid of these biased judges and put in judges that are going to treat everyone fairly. A better court system means a better criminal appeals process. No defendant or lawyer should worry if the judge is white because that shouldn’t determine if you will win or not.

Works Cited

1. Oldfather, Chad M., and Michael M. O’Hear. “Criminal Appeals: Past, Present, and Future.” Marquette Law Review, vol. 93, no. 2, Winter 2009, pp. 339-347. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.uhd.edu/loginurl=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=a9h&AN=52980281&site=eds-live&scope=site.
2. JOY A. CHAPPER & ROGER A. HANSON, NAT’L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, UNDERSTANDING REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CRIMINAL APPEALS: FINAL REPORT (1989), https://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/criminal/id/1 [https://perma.cc/39YSYJFK].
3. Heise, Michael, et al. “State Criminal Appeals Revealed.” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.70, no. 6, Nov.2017, pp. 1939-1970. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.uhd.edu/login? Url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=1gh&AN=126502647&site=eds-live&scope=site.
4. Kuang, Kai, and Bin Liang. “Efficiency and Justice and Fairness: An Empirical Analysis of Criminal Appeals in Human Province, China.” European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, vol. 21, no. 4, Dec. 2015, pp. 565-590. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10610-014-9266-2.
5. Stevenson, Bryan. A Story of Justice and Redemption. Scribe, 2015.

Reader’s Reflection on Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson

I want to start off by saying that I liked the book, Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. This book really talks about and highlights the issues that are still occuring in our justice system today. The reason why I like this book is because me as a person of color it sheds light to what people of color face when it comes to the justice system. This book focuses on a black man named Walter McMillian who is accused of murdering a white women by the name of Ronda Morrison and get sentenced to death in prison.

The author Bryan Stevenson is a legal advocate and took on Walter McMillians case. There were other cases that Bryan took on where the inmates were all on death row. Getting back to Walter McMillians case he was accused of murdering a white women off the basis of him being black. The most shocking part of Walter’s case is the sheriff, district attorney, and other investigators were openly racist and pushed this case forward based off of Walter being black. There was evidence that was hidden while people given false testimonies to ensure that Walter McMillian was accused of this crime and sentenced to death.

People were admitting that they saw Walter McMillian there at the crime scene when he killed Ronda Morrison knowing that they were lying and ruining an innocent man’s life just because of his skin color. It seems that Walter McMillian was only accused of this crime because he was having an affair with a white women and the people were against that because he was black. From the careless actions of people who have authority Walter McMillians went to jail and had to leave his wife and five young children. There was no thought about how wrongly accusing a man can affect his wife or his family. It was Bryan Stevenson who was able to shed light to evidence that exposes the racial discrimination that was happening.

This story shows how just by the color of your skin you can be sentenced to death in jail. It show how the justice system has no mercy for sending people to jail where there is no evidence proving they have done the crime, specially the blacks. As a black man I have experienced a lot of moments where I have been driving on the road and knowing I have not done anything wrong but I still get pulled over by a police officer. Whereas when my fellow co-workers talk about speeding by police officers they joke and say they will never be pulled over because of the color of their skin. It is commonly portrayed in criminal television shows that every time a crime happens it is mostly the black man that did it. This shows corrupt our justice system is, especially for the Black communities, it explain how the justice system is not fair when a Black person did not commit a crime or even when they do commit it, they do not receive the same justice as another race.

This story explains that just because of the color of your skin you are already a target to many people around you mainly by the justice system as well. Later in the book Walter McMillian is released from jail and exonerated after being on death row for six years. From the traumatic experience of being on death row he has anxiety and dementia. Walter McMillian was detached from reality for six years and then just put back into reality expecting him to be the same. It was known that Walter McMillian was innocent the entire time but he still spent six years on death row. Even though he was exonerated his life was forever changed and never would be the same. It makes me start to think that there are more cases of Black men who are knowingly sentenced to death in prison for crimes they have not committed. Going back to the story Bryan Stevenson worked closely with the Equal Justice Initiative to fight more cases like the one I have discussed above. It still shocks me that authority is allowed to misuse their power to put innocent men behind bars and not feel remorse for what they have done. This story proves that our Justice System has failed the Black Community and we need a better Justice System that will be fair no matter the race of the person.

Drug Addiction’s Socio-Economic Impact

Addiction has seemingly become more prevalent in todays society. The most prominent addictions being drug addiction with its long and extensive history of shaping society and social media which is a relatively new phenomenon. There is plenty of different ways addiction can affect society. It affects everyone psychologically having a massive impact culturally, potentially changing the decision making of the populous dramatically. Addiction can also impact society in many ways economically. Either this be through the incentivisation of taxation to fund the healthcare system to combat the consequences of these issues or through the way addiction can impact consumers purchasing habits.

Drug addiction can severely impact a society’s economy. Either it be through the public health and safety issues arising from such abuse, or the disproportionate effect drug abuse has on our class system. Drug abuse inflicts catastrophic harm on the public’s health and safety all around the globe, threatening the peaceful development and disrupting potentially smooth functioning societies. Despite knowing the dire impacts that drug addiction has on society it is extremely hard to gather calculate the entire global monetary burden that is placed by this issue. Although finding out the overall monetary burden to the exact dollar is an almost impossible feat, being able to analyse the consequences of certain policy choices and discovering strong correlating social links is certainly in the realms of possibility. Crime is a major component to how drugs impact the economy. Our current understanding is that there are three major links between drug addiction and crime. The first being the simplest, psychopharmacological crime. This being crime that is committed under the influence of a substance (INCB – International Narcotics Control Board, 2013). Crime committed under the influence of drugs is a major problem worldwide. For example, in a study in Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, as many as 55% of convicted offenders reported that they were under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence, with only 19% of the same set of offenders saying that they would still have committed the crime even if they had not been under the influence of drugs. This shows that self admittedly a substantial 36% of criminals believe they would not have committed the crime if drug abuse was not a contributing factor. This isn’t an isolated instance either, the same study conducted research into driving factor for these crimes being drugs all around the world. They founded that there was a strong correlated link all over the globe. Specifically, in the United States they found that 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they had committed their crimes in order to acquire money to purchase the drugs they were addicted too (INCB – International Narcotics Control Board, 2013).

Addiction not only effects society in a tremendous way economically, it also affects us socially. It does this by disproportionately effecting people of a certain class, specifically poor people. This effects society in many ways, it contributes to an overall negative psychological issue that seems to run primarily through poor and unemployed people regarding self-worth and it also hinders their chances of breaking out of the class strata they occupy. This can have serious effects on society as class mobility is extremely important as a deterrent for crime and injustice. As stated by ST Joseph Institute for Addiction, addiction has strong correlations between poverty and mental health. These correlations include increases in stress which can be a determining factor as to whether someone becomes a regular user of a substance. People within poverty tend to have a higher chance of feeling hopelessness. This happens when meeting daily expenses is difficult, making dreams of attending college, buying a home, opening a business, or traveling the world seem impossible. Feeling as though you are powerless over your own future creates a vulnerability to substance abuse.