The Abolitionist 's Theory Of Crime

Since the 19th century, law enforcement and punishment has developed rapidly into the justice system we rely on today. Obscure laws that had become irrelevant in an industrial and post-industrial era were fast being replaced, and despite its lack of existence at the beginning of the 1800’s, policing standards are, today, high. The necessity for this drastic change in approach to crime has stemmed from the needs of industrial Britain, and the increased awareness of the public, and government, and their perception of crime and punishment. Rather than individual cases having a direct impact on these changes, in general they provide an insight as to the reactions of the public at the time, and along with the myriad of other cases, allow us

The documentary 13th featured on Netflix discusses the heavy topics of slavery and mass incarceration in our Criminal Justice System. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution freed the slaves and prohibited slavery, unless it was a punishment for a crime. Making criminals an exception to this protection made them slaves to the state, again. There has been an immense continuation of slavery through the criminalization of behavior of African Americans in our society and through our Criminal Justice System practices. Convict leasing, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, and the War on Drugs are all systems of oppression that can be seen in today's practices that allow for this perpetuation of slavery, currently recognized as mass incarceration.

Many individuals believe that the criminal system and its institutions are flawed. These critiques have been brought on by the ineffectiveness of prisons to reform individuals, the ineptness of the system to reduce crime rates, the lack of focus on victims of crimes, as well as the racist, classist and sexist practices existing in these institutions. Therefore, we can ask ourselves if the elimination of the current penal system and the implementation of alternatives would better allow

The purpose of this essay is to discuss whether a perspective of social harm is more advantageous and useful over that of crime. In order to explore these advantages, this essay will look at the aetiology of crime from a legal perspective; which is arguably very narrow and individualistic in nature. As well as from a perspective of social harm, which is possibly more progressive as it broadens an understanding of ‘crime’ over that of many other serious harms.

From the 19th century to the 20th, crime control state agencies have become instilled with ‘penal welfarism’ and rehabilitation. However since then they’ve been dominated by risk management, incapacitation and retribution. In clarifying this change Garland; the formal organisations of crime control have a tendency to be responsive. Garland states “too often our attention focuses on the state’s institutions and neglects the informal social practices upon which state

The concept of ‘crime’ is something that depends on time, place, and other influences. For this reason, researchers have been trying to get criminologists to rethink their definitions of ‘crime’ and consider the idea of ‘social harm’ which could help better explain the causes of human suffering and the definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminals’ and broaden the application of criminal justice. What this rethinking can do for criminologists broadly is give them a broader picture of human psychology as well as the range of harms that individuals, communities, or whole societies experience. In this context this can include crime in the sense of activities of individuals as well as government and institutions.

Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current

Imprisonment is one of the primary ways in which social control may be achieved; the Sage Dictionary of Criminology defines social control as a concept used to describe all the ways in which conformity may be achieved. Throughout time imprisonment and its ideas around social control have varied. Imprisonment has not always been used for punishment, nor has it always thought about the prisoners themselves. However when looking at imprisonment it is important to consider the new penology. Therefore, it needs to be clear what the new penology is. The new penology is said, not to be about punishing individuals or about rehabilitating them, but about identifying and managing unruly groups in society. It is concerned with the managerial

The legal definition of crime is “an act of violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing it must have intended to do so and must have done so without legally acceptable defence or justification” (Walsh & Hemmens 2008:2). Alternatively, deviance is any social behaviour which departs from that regarded as ‘normal’ or socially acceptable within a society or social context (Jary & Jary 1991:160). The underlining focus of my essay is The Criminal Justice System in England and Wales which is a key public service consisting of various bodies and individuals including: the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Court Service, National Offender Management Services (Probation and Prisons) and Youth Justice Board.

Crime is a social construction, and behaviour defined as criminal varies across time and place. Crime is an act that violate moral behaviour, but why is that not all behaviours that violate moral behaviour are labelled as crime? This is because crime is defined differently across different societies and different times. Neutralisation and drift theory helps us to explain why people abuse children by showing us how perpetrators rationalise their guilt for these actions before they physically, sexually, emotionally abuse or neglect children. They do this by blaming their actions on other people, higher forces or believing their acts are harmless. In this essay I will begin by talking about crime as a social construction then touch on child abuse in New Zealand followed by a discussion of how my social contract theory helps us to explain this crime.

Social class and crime and punishment has always been an issue in the UK if not globally. For the elite, the criminal justice system serves a purpose to deter and prevent crime, but the reality is that the poor are punished for crimes they commit more so than those of a upper class who commit the same crime. The question is who is to blame for this image of the poor being criminals and the working class crime phenomenon, is it the moral Panic created by the media to distract from the reality of the white collar corporate crime being carried out by the most powerful of society or is it down to Poverty, Labelling, economic and social positioning which all contribute to deviant behaviour. The aim of this essay is to provide a critical criminological view of the punishment of the poor with a wide range of theories and ideas to contribute to the understanding of the poor being punished from the 18th century to today 's contemporary society. It will aim to develop an understanding how criminals and deviant behaviour were defined and perceived from historical periods to now.

Many theories of crime are macro theories, which are used to explain crime based on a large group of people or society. While macro theories are the predominant type of theory used to explain crime, there are also a variety of “individual”, or micro, factors which are equally important. Two such individual factors s are maternal cigarette smoking (MCS) and cognitive ability, or Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

It’s common knowledge that slavery was made illegal in the United States by the 13th amendment to the constitution, in 1865. However, it is less widely known that the 13th amendment still allows slavery as a punishment for crime. If a person commits an illegal act, it is perfectly constitutional to enslave them. This forced labor is one of the most profitable industries to the United States. The blatant exploitation of prisoners by the U.S. government must be put to an end.

It can be argued that imprisonment has been widely found to have failed to achieve its stated goals. Rehabilitation as perceived within the prison context is a myth. The predominant objective of control has developed in such a manner as to exclude the successful operation of any rehabilitation process. In looking at the nature and operation of the New South Wales prison system, for example, one is confronted by a system preoccupied with notions of control and security. A very disturbing feature of the system is that the availability of such prison accommodation helps to define the nature of the offender rather than the offender being defined by the nature of his offence (Wilkinson, 1972).