Criminology

Wuornos was born as Aileen Carol Pittman in Rochester, Michigan. She had one older brother named Keith, who was born in February 1955. Her mother, Diane Pratt, was 15 years old when she married Leo Dale Pittman on June 3, 1954. Less than two years into marriage and two months before Wuornos was born, Pratt filed for divorce. Pittman was a child molester who spent most of his life in and out of prison. Wuornos never met her father, as he was imprisoned for the rape and attempted murder of an eight-year-old boy at the time of her birth.

Leo Pittman was strangled in prison in 1969. In January 1960, Pratt abandoned her children, leaving them with their maternal grandparents – Lauri and Britta Wuornos. They were legally adopted on March 18, 1960 by the Wuornos family and took their surname. From a young age, Wuornos engaged in sex with multiple partners, including her own brother. At the age of 13, she became pregnant, claiming the pregnancy was a result of being raped by an unknown man. Wuornos gave birth at a Detroit home for unwed mothers on March 23, 1971. The child, a son, was placed for adoption.

On July 7, 1971 Britta Wuornos died of liver failure, after which Wuornos and her brother became wards of the court. At age 15, Wuornos’ grandfather threw her out of the house, and she began supporting herself as a prostitute. On May 27, 1974, Wuornos was arrested in Jefferson County, Colorado for drunk driving, disorderly conduct, and firing a . 22-caliber pistol from a moving vehicle. She was later charged with failure to appear. In 1976, Wuornos hitchhiked to Florida, where she met 70-year-old yacht club president Lewis Gratz Fell (June 28, 1907 — January 6, 2000).

They married that same year, and the news of their nuptials was printed in the local newspaper’s society pages. However, Wuornos continually involved herself in confrontations at their local bar and was eventually sent to jail for assault. She also hit Fell with his own cane, leading him to get a restraining order against her, after which she returned to Michigan. On July 14, 1976, Wuornos was arrested in Antrim County, Michigan and charged with assault and disturbing the peace following an incident in which she threw a cue ball at a bartender’s head.

On July 17, her brother Keith died of throat cancer and Wuornos acquired $10,000 from his life insurance. Wuornos and Fell divorced on July 21 after nine weeks of marriage. On May 20, 1981, Wuornos was arrested in Edgewater, Florida for the armed robbery of a convenience store. She was consequently sentenced to prison on May 4, 1982 and released on June 30, 1983. On May 1, 1984, Wuornos was arrested for attempting to pass forged checks at a bank in Key West. On November 30, 1985, she was named as a suspect in the theft of a revolver and ammunition in Pasco County.

On January 4, 1986, Wuornos was arrested in Miami and charged with grand theft auto, resisting arrest and obstruction by false information (she provided identification with the name Lori Grody, her aunt). Miami police found a . 38-caliber revolver and a box of ammunition in the stolen car. On June 2, 1986, Volusia County deputies detained Wuornos for questioning after a male companion accused her of pulling a gun in his car and demanding $200. Wuornos was found to be carrying spare ammunition and a . 22 pistol was discovered beneath the passenger seat she occupied.

Around this time, Wuornos met Tyria Moore, a hotel maid, at a Daytona gay bar. They moved in together, and Wuornos supported them with her prostitution earnings. On July 4, 1987, Daytona Beach police detained Wuornos and Moore at a bar for questioning regarding an incident in which they were accused of assault and battery with a beer bottle. On March 12, 1988, Wuornos accused a Daytona Beach bus driver of assault. She claimed that he pushed her off the bus following a confrontation. Moore was listed as a witness to the incident.

Wuornos and Moore abandoned Peter Siems’ car after they were involved in an accident on July 4, 1990, after which Wuornos’ palm print was found. Witnesses who had seen the women driving the victims’ cars provided police with their names and descriptions, resulting in a media campaign to locate them. Police also found some of the victims’ belongings in pawnshops and retrieved fingerprints, which matched those found in the victims’ cars and on Wuornos’ arrest record. On January 9, 1991, Wuornos was arrested on an outstanding warrant at The Last Resort, a biker bar in Volusia County.

Police located Moore the next day in Scranton, Pennsylvania. She agreed to get a confession from Wuornos in exchange for prosecutorial immunity Moore returned with police to Florida, where she was put up in a motel. Under police guidance, Moore made numerous telephone calls to Wuornos, pleading for help in clearing her name. Three days later, on January 16, 1991, Wuornos confessed to the murders. She claimed the men had tried to rape her and she killed them in self-defense. Wuornos went to trial for the murder of Richard Mallory on January 14, 1992.

Prior bad acts are normally inadmissible in criminal trials, but under Florida’s Williams Rule, the prosecution was allowed to introduce evidence related to her other crimes in order to show a pattern of illegal acts. Wuornos was convicted for Richard Mallory’s murder on January 27, 1992 with help from Moore’s testimony. At her sentencing, psychiatrists for the defense testified that Wuornos was mentally unstable and had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. She was sentenced to death on January 31, 1992.

On March 31, 1992, Wuornos pleaded no contest to the murders of Dick Humphreys, Troy Burress and David Spears, saying she wanted to “get right with God”. In her statement to the court, she stated, “I wanted to confess to you that Richard Mallory did violently rape me as I’ve told you. But these others did not. [They] only began to start to. “On May 15, 1992, Wuornos was given three more death sentences. In June 1992, Wuornos pleaded guilty to the murder of Charles Carskaddon and received her fifth death sentence in November 1992.

The defense made efforts during the trial to introduce evidence that Mallory had been tried for intent to commit rape in Maryland, and that he had been committed to a maximum security correctional facility in Maryland which provided remediation to sexual offenders. Records obtained from that institution reflected that from 1958 to 1962, Mallory was committed for treatment and observation resulting from a criminal charge of assault with intent to rape, and received an overall eight years of treatment from the facility.

In 1961, “it was observed of Mr. Mallory that he possessed strong sociopathic trends. “The judge refused to allow this to be admitted in court as evidence and denied Wuornos’ request for a retrial. In February 1993, Wuornos pleaded guilty to the murder of Walter Jeno Antonio and was sentenced to death again. No charges were brought against her for the murder of Peter Siems, as his body was never found. In all, she received six death sentences.

To what extent does labelling theory offer a useful contribution to the study of crime and deviance in today’s society Introduction This assignment will Discuss labelling theory, it will attempt to explore the contributions made by labelling theorists, the criticism towards labelling theorists, and the discussion surrounding its reality as an actual theory. However the main focus will be proving an understanding of Howard Becker‘s Labelling Theory and will describe and evaluate Labelling Theory to the study of crime.

In conclusion it will discuss how relevant labelling theory is today.  Labelling Theory or The Social Reaction Theory as it is more often known has been around and has developed over time from as early as 1938. It became very popular during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were it was seen as a new departure in theories of crime and deviance particularly in sociology. Edwin Lemert is widely recognized as the founder of what is called the Societal Reaction Theory.

This is the forerunner to the Social Reaction or Labelling Theory which has present day acceptance and includes many of the same concepts. Currently, labelling theory suggests that when a person commits a crime, they receive the label of criminal. When a person is labelled criminal by society, they are likely to accept this label as a part of themselves and because the person now thinks of themselves as a criminal, they are now likely to continue in their criminal behaviour (Becker, 1963). This is still relevant to this day, e. g. f a male was to murder a female he will always be seen and known as a criminal. In order to understand labelling theory, familiarization is needed with Lemert’s Societal Reaction Theory. This theory explores the journey to social deviance in two stages; primary deviance and secondary deviance. Howard Becker is widely associated with the labelling theory through his volume Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. He also developed the term “moral entrepreneur” to describe persons in power who campaign to have certain deviant behaviour outlawed.

He asserts that many of the laws that have been passed have been solely for this purpose, and that behaviour which is defined as criminal is dynamic and changes throughout time and that therefore, the actual criminal behaviour is irrelevant to the theory. (Becker, 1963). Becker himself has stated however, that the concept of his work is not a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, or focused solely on the act of labelling as some have thought.

It is not a single concept, being instead a number of assorted ideas that have been brought together under one approach, although critics have called the work ambiguous, inconsistent and at best a vague perspective Becker, never sought to provide an all-embracing, etiological explanation of deviance Becker himself prefers the term ‘Interactionist Theory of Deviance’ developing the study of deviance from a distinctly social perspective, considering the processes by which particular types of act or people, come to be labelled as deviant.

He has been influenced by works such as Cooley’s ‘looking-glass self’ , Lemert’s ideas of social constructionism , and Mead’s theories on the internalisation of the self, Becker makes two arguments: 1. Deviant behaviour must be conceptualized in terms of a sequential model since different causes operate at different stages, 2. Rules and enforcement processes must be viewed as developing through time rather than as an isolated moment of disapproval. Definition of Labelling Theory Also known as Social Reaction Theory, this is a theory originated by Edwin Lemert and then developed by sociologist Howard Becker.

It is a social theory concerned with how people perceive themselves as delinquent or criminal due to the labels, which categorized and describe certain behaviours, that are applied to them by criminal justice authorities and by others in society. The theory maintains that the labels people are given affect their own and others perceptions of them, and how the behaviour of an individual is influenced or even created by the use of certain labels (i. e. , thief, prostitute, homosexual). The resulting treatment of the individual then pushes them into performing the deviant role or back into conformity.

The theory also maintains that the deviance itself is characterized by societies reaction to any alleged violation of the rules or the expectations of what are considered normal conduct. Primary Deviance Primary deviance begins with an initial criminal act. As stated by Lemart it is a rule-breaking behaviour that is carried out by people who see themselves and are indeed seen by others as basically conformist by nature. Following this act of deviance the person may be labelled as deviant or criminal by their peers and society, yet they themselves do not yet accept this label.

That is to say that they do not think of themselves in terms as being a criminal. It is this lack of acceptance to see themselves as criminal which differentiates primary from secondary deviance. This person shall remain in a state of primary deviance for as long as they are capable of rationalizing and able to deal with this label by justifying the act as a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1951). When leading on to Secondary Deviance, the criminal label is placed on an individual during what is known as a Degradation Ceremony in which the accused person is formally or officially labelled as a criminal.

This would normally take place during court sentencing, but may also come about in more subtle fashions as well. For example the relatives of a person become withdrawn and distance themselves from that person when they find out they have committed a crime, regardless of whether or not they face any formal charges (Wellford, 1975). An example of this would be an exotic dancer: In today’s society an exotic dancer is a perfect example. Others may label the dancer’s act as deviant while the dancer themselves may see it as a perfectly legitimate profession as with any other occupation which enables them to earn an income.

Secondary Deviance According to Lemart secondary deviance occurs when there is an acceptance by the individual of the deviant behaviour and the criminal label, it unabsorbed into their self image, they therefore see themselves from that point in time as a criminal or deviant. This then becomes a mechanism for defence, attack, or adaptation to the problems of the individual caused by society’s reaction to their primary deviation (Lemert, 1951). is only considered to have occurred when the labelled person can no longer deny the label having undergone a degradation ceremony which labels the person eviant, be this through a personal audience such as family or friends, or a more formal one such as in a court of law, both the individual and society both now accept the view that the offender is a criminal. Once they finally accept this label as a part of themselves they will act,from this point onward, in a way befitting this new criminal label. Secondary deviances is considered to have occurred when both society and the individual share the view that the offender is a criminal. Deviant Career and Master Status Becker’s theory pays particular attention to the way in which society reacts to people with criminal labels.

He suggests that this label becomes the person’s Master Status, meaning that it is a constant label, that affects and over-rides how others in society will view them. The status that people will use to identify and classify the person will always be that of criminal. Any other statuses a person may have had are no longer heeded nor valid in the eyes of society. A person could be a parent, employee, spouse, etc. , but the first and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963).

On occasion the person’s criminal master status may compel them to conform more closely to society’s accepted norms. This is an attempt to show to others that the person may have made , but such mistakes will not happen again. From this time onwards they will act in a fashion that is deemed Normal (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972). It is believed however, that in most cases where the master status is that of a criminal, secondary deviance will be completed rather than being resisted. An identity change will take place in whereby the person will now accept the label of criminal.

With this new criminal identity is in place, there is subsequent pressure for the individual to behave accordingly. Such an identity change may be signalled by a person losing contact with their former friends (conformist) and starting up associations with other criminal labelled deviants (Becker, 1963). In this new peer group of similarly minded deviants there increases the likelihood of the person not only continuing but also possibly escalating the rate and seriousness of their criminal behavior. Negative Labelling

There are a number of powerful individuals within society (politicians, judges, police officers, medical doctors) who can impose some of the most significant labels. The labelled person may be a drug addict, an alcoholic, a criminal, a delinquents or a prostitute to name but a few. The consequences of being labelled a deviant can be far-reaching. Social research indicates that those who have negative labels applied to them usually have a lower self-image of themselves, that they are more likely to reject themselves, and that they may even act even more deviantly as a result of the label.

The research also shows that it is unfortunate that people who accept the labelling of others, whether it is correct or incorrect, have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labelled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary. In a small study of child behavior after punishment, it was found that if the audience held the offender in a positive regard, the offender was likely to rise to these expectations and act in a manner befitting a “good boy” (Wellford, 1975). In this way it is possible to use labelling theory in a more productive manner.

The implications of the study results suggest that two things can be done in order to help prevent labelling theory from having negative effects on people who’ve broken the law. First of all if the court atmosphere could be avoided in situations where the crime were minor offenses or misdemeanors its possible that the offender would be able to avoid formal sentencing and the degradation ceremony that goes with it. In such cases rehabilitative therapy and out-of-court settlements would be preferable. The other possibility is that a formal ceremony which would cancel the stigma associated with the degradation ceremony could be held.

Perhaps a court declaration or letter that the offender is hereby rehabilitated could be used after the offender has served their punishment (Broadhead, 1974). Criticisms of Labelling Theory There have been many criticisms on labelling theorists, Becker states that how interactionist theories have been accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. From a logical standpoint there are flaws within the main points of Labelling Theory. At the outset the theory states that “No acts are inherently criminal” (Wellford, 1975). This implies that acts are only “criminal” when society regards them as being “criminal“.

The implications of this as stated by Howard Becker are that “criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to society“. If this holds true then why are certain acts illegal and labelled as criminal in the majority of the civilized world? Murder, rape, arson, armed robbery to mention a few are all considered to be crimes in any society or country one would could care to name. The theory also claims that for a criminal to be successfully labelled as deviant that an audience needs to be present in order to provide a reaction to the crimes committed.

If a murder is committed where the killer successfully avoids detection or raising anyone’s suspicion, would that mean that the murder was not criminal and that the killer would not think of themselves as such? It may be probable that the murderer’s own value system could initialize self-labelling, but the theory clearly states the labelling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973). There have been criticisms that the terms in labelling theory lack precision, and that there is no real account taken of the central social processes, such as how every day behaviour actually needs to have a societal reaction.

The methodology generally is also seen as lacking clarity, and incorporating too many commonsense definitions and assumptions. It is felt that what is needed is a more detailed study in areas such as police procedures, or the categories deployed/applied by social workers and lawyers. in the case of police behaviour, For example, in police behaviour it is clear that much depends upon the appearance, image, or attitude of the potential suspect, and that very different treatments can be aportioned to suspects, depending on the collective and immediately formed social judgements of the police officer (Cicourel 1968).

Labelling theory appears to over do the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy or a deviant career, there is no real gathering of evidence for this, especially what makes a label effective and permanent, how it becomes a master identity. Examples of Research Conducted by Labelling Theorists William Chambliss in 1973 conducted a classic study into the effects of labelling. His two groups of white, male, high-school students were both frequently involved in delinquent acts of theft, vandalism, drinking, and truancy. The police never arrested the members of one group, which Chambliss abelled the “Saints,” but the police did have frequent run-ins with members of the other group, which he labelled the “Roughnecks. ” The boys in the Saints came from respectable families, had good reputations and grades in school, and were careful not to get caught when breaking the law. By being polite, cordial, and apologetic whenever confronted by the police, the Saints escaped labelling themselves as “deviants. ” In contrast, the Roughnecks came from families of lower socioeconomic status, had poor reputations and grades in school, and were not careful about being caught when breaking the law.

By being hostile and insolent whenever confronted by the police, the Roughnecks were easily labelled by others and themselves as “deviants. ” In other words, while both groups committed crimes, the Saints were perceived to be “good” because of their polite behavior (which was attributed to their upper-class backgrounds) and the Roughnecks were seen as “bad” because of their insolent behavior (which was attributed to their lower-class backgrounds). As a result, the police always took action against the Roughnecks, but never against the Saints.

Conclusion

Becker, (1963) claims that laws are established for a reason, and behaviour that is defined as criminal is dynamic and will change within time. This shows that criminal behaviour is not relevant to the theory. However it is still to this day seen as debatable. However there is one known exception, many labelling theorists say the system is biased towards the lower class, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of arrests and convictions within the American criminal justice system (Wellford, 1975). Becker is the usual source of radical variants of labelling.

His work implies there is no need to explain deviance in the first place, that it is in fact a very common social activity, a normal one, which only becomes abnormal when it is to so labelled. Labelling itself then becomes confirming, a self-fulfilling prophecy, launching people on a deviant career. Today, one rarely finds labelling theories like those which predominated in the late 1960s. Certainly there are still social constructivist accounts of some type of deviance or another, and studies about the meaning of crime to criminals and criminalizers are still done. A hift seems to have taken place around 1974 in which labelling theory accommodated itself to legalistic definitions, or at least a focus on state power. Modern labelling theories came to recognize that societies “create” crime by passing laws, and that the substantive nature of the law should be an object of study. Sometimes, these are called criminalization theories (Hartjen 1974), and they have some resemblance to societal reaction approaches, but they more closely fall into a field that criminologists trained in sociology call the sociology of law perspective or the study of law as a mechanism of social control.

Most modern labelling theorists have been influenced by a critique of the underdog focus which was provided by Liazos (1972) when he said that sociologists need to stop studying “nuts, sluts, and perverts. ” The one aspect of this theory that could be regarded positively is that it is very easy to understand and can be quickly explained, breaking down all criminal behavior into primary and secondary deviance with a few simple statements for each.

Bibliography

1. Alexander Liazos (1982) People First: An introduction to Social Problems Allyn & Bacon pp121
2. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: The Free Press
3. Joseph Rowntree foundation (2009) http://www. jrf. org. uk/ accessed 12/03/09 Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: MacGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc.
4. Wellford, C. (1975). Labelling Theory and Criminology: An Assessment. Social Problems, Vol. 22, No. 3, 332-345

By this full implementation this could help to our politicians making our places peaceful, peers group could be avoided eke gangster, sorority, and fraternity groups. For the curfew hours of minors will also effective if that could be fully implemented. By this no person below 18 years old will be in their home before night hours. They will focus on their study, making their assignment at home. Instead of wasting their time in drinking liquors, playing gambling playing billiards and computer games.

Because they will not be allowing to stand by and all public places between 7:00 pm to 5:00 am. Juvenile crimes will be avoided. Fully implementation of curfew could help the public enforcer to make peace and order to the immunity. Crimes will be decreasing because if there are no minors and other people who were got drunk there will be the possibility that no one will commit a crime. And was in favor of the fully implementation of curfew hours in the reason that parents/ guardian will be having a peace in mind that their children are safe from any vices that could they in countered.

B. What are the advantages/disadvantages of the full implementation of the above proposition? Youth is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. By imposing curfew hours it can help to solve this problem. It is advantageous, because it keeps minor or others people in the street, and therefore out of trouble, and prevent from congregating in the hours of darkness. Curfews on minors help to protect vulnerable children for not all parents are responsible and inevitably their children.

Suffer both from crime and accidents, and are likely to full into bad habits. C. How do we solve or what suggestion would you recommend to solve above proposition? I suggest that curfew hours should be fully implemented in La Trinidad, by the approval Of the municipal mayor Edna Tableland. If that could e happen the place of La Trinidad will have a peace and safety community. There are no people stands by at the public places like Tableland Park.

All economic structures establishment like bars, clubs, restaurant, billiard hall, and computer shop will be closed during night time. Curfew will also provide safety precaution to the other businesses. By fully implementation of curfew hours will cause in the decreasing of crime rate in La Trinidad. There are many crime cases that the police have encountered like the case of PEP Mendoza who shot the owner of the midtown bar located at town, latrine, unguent in the reason that he was drunk.

If the full implementation of curfew hours was imposed earlier that could not be happen. In socio-cultural way back in the past people the place of La Trinidad have a few number of business establishment, but when the years goes by it brought to a sociological changes. The ways of the fore father were able to evolve. As I suggest to side of educational sectors curfew hours should be imposed, to avoid minors from addiction to computers, drinking liquor, and other vices that it could affect their studies.

William P Obptande Check Point Crime Reporting and Rates Response Write a 200- to 300-word response in which you address the following questions: What is the purpose of major crime-reporting programs? What makes a successful crime-reporting program in the United States? Programs generally report little detailed information about program expenditures and results. Consequently, it is difficult to hold programs accountable for performance. There is also a lack of information about which programs are effective in reducing crime, due to the small number of programs that are evaluated for effectiveness.

In addition, even when information is available, it is not consistently used to modify program design and funding. There is a lack of coordination among the multiple state departments that administer crime prevention programs which results in duplication of effort and inefficiencies. Develop standardized review criteria which can be used to determine funding allocations for new and existing crime prevention programs. Require and fund well-designed impact evaluations that increase knowledge about the types of crime prevention programs which are effective, and therefore should be funded.

Establish a state crime prevention office within an existing entity or new organization to develop a strategic plan to coordinate statewide crime prevention activities. How do crime rates relate to arrest rates and clearance rates? Is there a way to improve the correlation between crime rates, arrest rates, and clearance rates in the effort to combat criminal activity? *  Clearance rate is calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are “cleared” e. g. due to a charge being laid) by the total number of crimes recorded.

These are used by various criminal justice groups as a measure of crimes solved by the police. Clearance rates can be very problematic for measuring the performance of police services and for comparing various police services. This is because a police force may employ a very different way of measuring clearance rates. For example, each police force may have a different method of recording when a “crime” has occurred and different criteria for determining when a crime has been “cleared. One police force may appear to have a much better clearance rate simply because of its calculation methodology. In System Conflict Theory, it is argued that clearance rates cause the police to focus on appearing to solve crimes (generating high clearance rate scores) rather than actually solving crimes. Further focus on clearance rates may result in effort being expended to attribute crimes (correctly or incorrectly) to a criminal, which may not result in retribution, compensation, rehabilitation or deterrence.

CHAPTER 1 CRIME THEORY: CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY There could be different reasons of increasing crimes. One of the obvious reasons is poverty and social injustice. Most of the people engaged in crime either don’t have proper source of income or they are socially discriminated. So the main reason of crime is poverty and social injustice. Most of the places with high poverty and social injustice have high crime rate (Jerry, 1995). The most important policy implications that would be most successful in reducing crime and/or rehabilitating convicted offenders in long term are critical criminology theories.

In critical criminology crimes are defined in terms of domination. That is if some class or group is dominant than they can make social concept lawful and unlawful. Lower class, single parent women, poor people and minorities mainly suffer due to domination factor by others (Hopkin, 2001). 1. 1 Broad Problem Area: “Importance of Critical Criminology in Reducing Crimes” Justice system around the world is not strong enough to reduce crimes. So we need alternative approach through which criminals can become useful and productive member of the society.

It’s not easy to completely change justice system but it’s not difficult to make criminals better citizens as well. Critical criminology is an effective way to reduce social injustice and crimes. Concept of critical criminology came in late sixties and early seventies. It mainly deals with the dominative and differential relation between different groups on the basis of demographic factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, minorities, cultures, values and social groups.

This culture and social diversity was created due to migrations and human nature. Social indifferences are another form of injustice. It’s important to support these peoples who are being discriminated (Bauman and Tester, 2001). According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, in critical criminology the scope of crimes is defined differently on the basis of social circumstances and time period of their occurrence. Critical criminology is somewhat different from basic study of criminology that deals with criminals and their behaviors.

The basic idea of critical criminology is that the social and past trends would define whether some thing is unlawful or not at given time. There could be different things that are considered to be unlawful in past but now they are lawful and same goes with those things which are lawful in past but now they are unlawful. Such as marriage of homosexuals was considered to be unlawful in past but now with the passage of time societies are accepting this and making laws to protect marriages of homosexuals.

This is not possible that all the studies on crimes are dealing with modern social life but they are some way connected to the present (Garland, 1999). There could be different theories that could emerges from critical criminology such as conflict theories, feminist theories, & postmodern and peacemaking theories. A conflict theory of criminology is not accepted largely by criminologist because they think conflict theories don’t address the criminal activities in socialist and capitalist societies.

Feminist theories define that crime done by males and crimes done by females should be viewed differently. They give new aspect to criminology on the basis of gender. Critical criminologists have different views and way of resolving crimes. These two theories are mainly recognized around the world. Main emphasis is given to relation between criminals and societies. Even feminist criminologists don’t properly represent gender prospective and take back their views after failure of other criminologists (Van, 1997). There is a difference between critical criminology and conventional criminology.

Conventional criminology is not dealing with activities which are affecting life of thousands of people such as politicians’ decisions that could affect millions of people, corporate scandals that affected thousands of workers, stock market manipulations that affected thousand of investors and also discriminations of minorities that have no end. Conventional laws do not answer these structural disparities that helps dominate group to take advantage of it. Conventional criminology is dealing with state defined crimes but not the crimes that are harming society ocially (Stephen, 1983). Criminologists working to find ways to resolve or to reduce crimes are not able to identify or not able to provide any authentic procedures to resolve crimes (Braithwaite, 1998). And also they didn’t even give importance to issues or difference created due to power and state (Cunneen and White 1996). This is still a claim that critical craniologist are more inclined towards gaining some position and recognition rather than actually doing some thing for society to protect human rights and to promote justice in society.

Since 1960, activists in human rights and social justice are molding progress in critical criminology theory. There is a relation between criminologists and social & human right moments (Braithwaite, 1989). Critical criminologist overstates the crime problem in society. Instead of removing the mystery that crimes are not their and its media created etc. they should accept crimes as a dilemma of powerless. They must not criticize criminal system by keeping this fact in mind that it is created by undue protection given to the privileged class.

There is a cause effect relationship between crimes and poverty, racism, discrimination, social injustice, racisms etc. Critical criminoloiges must keep this in mind while evaluating crimes. However, critical criminology and traditional criminology should not work in different ways rather they should work together in the same way. (Cohen, 1998). 1. 2 Problem Statement: “Is Critical thinking is helpful to reduce crimes and able to reduce social injustice from society”. 1. 3 Purpose & Significance of Study

The main purpose of this study is to identify the importance of critical criminology in order to reduce crimes. This study will also identify other ways to reduce crimes and their effectiveness. And it will also explain what factors are responsible for crimes. This study will help policy makers and law enforcing agencies to avoid crimes by using proper critical criminology theories. 1. 4 Research Questions The aim of this research is to study, 1) How do people perceive that critical criminology can reduce crimes? 2) How do people perceive the role of critical criminology in order to reduce injustice from society? ) How do people perceive that critical criminology approach is better way to reduce crime rather than conventional criminology approach? 1. 5 Theoretical Diagram In this diagram crimes reduction is dependent variable which depend on critical criminology that is independent variable. Critical Criminology method that properly identify social injustices that could change offender future behavior towards crime and society support to accept these people as a useful member of society are intervening variable. These variables can assure the effectiveness of counseling treatment to reduce crimes.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable Intervening Variable CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the basic methodology and requirement in research. It includes the methods of research, the respondents and their description, sources of data, the sets of research instruments that were used, the treatment of data, and the statistical tools, which were used in this study. 2. 1 Method of the Study: The research utilized the descriptive method in acquiring information for evaluation and analysis. The descriptive survey was the general rocedure employed in a study that has for its chief purposes the description of the phenomena that is importance of critical criminology theory in reducing crimes from society by providing social injustice. 2. 2 Sample, Type of Questionnaire, & Treatment of Data: The population for this research study was the general public. A random sample of 50 was taken from different places and different groups such as law enforcing agencies, community, criminologist etc. Researcher selected probability sampling, because every person had an equal chance of being selected.

The survey questionnaire seeks the perception of the respondents with respect to factors important for crime reduction. In order to analyze the information given in the questionnaires, Likert scale had been applied in question 1 to question 9. The purpose is to evaluate effectiveness of counseling in crime reduction. 2. 3 Validation of the questionnaire: It was deemed necessary to revalidate the questionnaire to find out the clarity of the questions being asked as well as their relevance to the problems formulated. The validation of the questionnaire was done through the comments and suggestion by respondent.

And also validation and reliability of research instrument used to get information that is questionnaire is done by implementing it to different places and same results were extracted from every place. 2. 4 Statistical Tools: Researcher used frequency and percentage distribution to determine the relationships of the variables and give clear and reliable analysis and interpretation of the data. The formula is; % = F/N ? 100 % = percentage F = frequency N = number of respondent CHAPTER 3 QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS, FINDINGS & CONCLUSION 3. 1 Questionnaire Analysis: Respondent responded in the following way: Topic Based on Questionnaire |Highly Disagree | Disagree | Moderately | |Highly Agree | | | | | |Agree | | |Critical criminology is providing support to poor, minority |11% |18% |25% |42% |4% | |and low social class group | | | | | | |Critical criminology theory is important to reduce social |0% |0% |14% |57% |29% | |differences | | | | | | |Main reason of increasing crime rate is social injustice |3% |10% |21% |40% |26% | |Critical criminology is playing important role in order to |11% |28% |31% |26% |4% | |highlight social injustices | | | | | | |Critical criminology is different from conventional |29% |36% |19% |10% |6% | |criminology | | | | | | |There is a difference of opinion among critical criminologist |18% |24% |21% |30% |7% | |Critical criminologists are criticizing conventional justice |17% |19% |23% |35% |6% | |system that it supports to powerful class | | | | | | Social movement regarding human rights and social justice is |0% |0% |9% |55% |36% | |supporting critical criminologist | | | | | | |Critical criminologists are working for their recognition |26% |37% |21% |10% |6% | |rather than to support social injustice | | | | | | 3. 2 Findings & Conclusion: On the basis of the questionnaire, most of the respondent responded that critical criminology is providing support to poor, minority and low social class group and critical criminology theory is important to reduce social differences • On the basis of the questionnaire, most of the respondent agreed on a statement that main reason of increasing crime rate is social injustice and critical criminology is playing important role in order to highlight social injustices • On the basis of the questionnaire, most of the respondent responded moderately agreed on a statement that critical criminology is different from conventional criminology and there is a difference of opinion among critical criminologist • On the basis of the questionnaire, most of the respondent responded that critical criminologists are criticizing conventional justice system that it supports to powerful class and social movement regarding human rights and social justice is supporting critical criminologist. In these days societies are giving more focus to crime, victimization, regulation, punishment, with respect to human rights, equity, social justice, well being of the community, and globalization.

More activists are taking interest in decreasing discrimination and imbalances in societies. They are trying to gather more people to take action for the betterment of society and this will affect both antiestablishment and establishment criminologies. If model of Mutualism develops with the same pace than critical criminologists have to revise their studies and ways to resolve crimes. They have to establish the relation between antiestablishment and establishment criminologies not for individual but for the society. Now societies are moving from equal rights and equal justice to human rights and social justice due to social movement to protect rights. References:

Bauman, Z. , & Tester, K. (2001). Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman. Cambridge: Polity Press. Braithwaite, J. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Braithwaite, J. 1998. Reducing the Crime Problem: A Not So Dismal Criminology. The New Criminology Revisited, London: Macmillan. Chan, J. 1996. Crime Prevention and the Lure of Relevance. Australian and New Zealand. Journal of Criminology, 27(1): 25-9. Cunneen, C. , and White, R. 1996. Juvenile Justice: An Australian Perspective. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press Garland, D. (1999). The Commonplace and the Catastrophic. Theoretical Criminology, 3(3), pp. 353-64.

Hopkins, B. R. (2001). An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Cullompton: Willan pg. 173 Jerry, B. (1995). Crime Control: We the People. Radio broadcasts. North Coast XPress. Stephen, B. 1983. Power & Crime. Van, S. R. (1997). Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe. London: Sage Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Critical Criminology. 2008. Retrieved on 12 July 2008 from http:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Critical_criminology QUESTIONNAIRE: RESEARCH PAPER CRIME THEORY: CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY Direction: Please indicate the degree of importance as perceived by you, by putting a tick mark opposite to each of the number item showing the degree of perception. Scale |Weights | |Highly Disagree |1 | |Disagree |2 | |Moderately |3 | |Agree |4 | |Highly Agree |5 | 1) At what extent do you think critical criminology is providing support to poor, minority and low social class group? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 2) At what extent do you think critical criminology theory is important to reduce social differences?

Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 3) At what extent do you think main reason of increasing crime rate is social injustice? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 4) At what extent do you think critical criminology is playing important role in order to highlight social injustices? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 5) At what extent do you think critical criminology is different from conventional criminology?

Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6) At what extent do you think there is a difference of opinion among critical criminologist? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 7) At what extent do you think critical criminologists are criticizing conventional justice system that it supports to powerful class? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 ) At what extent do you think social movement regarding human rights and social justice is supporting critical criminologist? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 9) At what extent do you think critical criminologists are working for their recognition rather than to support social injustice? Highly Disagree Highly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 ———————– Critical Criminology CRIMES REDUCTION Feminist Theory Conflict Theory Postmodern & Peacemaking Theories

DEATH PENALTY Kandi Roberts Philosophy 107 Martin McAuliffe May 10, 2010 The question regarding whether the United States should implement the death penalty as a form of punishment is a heated issue in American politics. The topic is so divisive because it deals with death, which is permanent. Life is valued in every society, and when life is taken away, emotions rise. Most human beings maintain a strong underlying fear of dying, so they wish to prevent their own death, especially their murder, at any cost. Furthermore, since crime is a prevalent problem in the U. S. , Americans yearn for a successful way to reduce the homicide rate.

However, most Americans do not favor the use of the death penalty when other options, such as life in prison without parole plus restitution, are presented (Dieter). By comparing the empirical and moral claims of the arguments in favor and against the use of the death penalty, we suggest that the presidential candidate take a cautiously anti-death penalty stance. The key issues involve whether the U. S. should sustain the current death penalty system, abolish it in favor of life in prison without parole plus restitution, or only reform the system to make it less costly and free of class, racial, and mental illness discrepancies.

Many people have a stake in the issue. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union are against the death penalty because they claim it is a cruel and unusual form of punishment, while other groups such as the National Center for Policy Analysis support the death penalty because they believe that life sentences do not deter homicide. Furthermore, victims’ families have a stake in the issue because they deserve justice for their murdered loved ones, and convicted murders have a stake because their own lives are in jeopardy as they sit on death row.

Most importantly, all the citizens of the United States are involved in the matter, since the way in which we punish crime affects public safety. Death penalty supporters believe that capital punishment is the only sure way to deter murderers from committing murders again. “The argument that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes is not only irrelevant, but also increasingly false. Six percent of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder were arrested for murder again within six years of release” (Death Penalty Paper).

The death penalty is the only absolute punishment for severe crimes, preventing convicted criminals from committing crimes again. “Obviously, those executed can’t murder again” (Death Penalty Paper). Furthermore, death penalty supporters argue that the concern should be in saving the lives of potential victims, not protecting the rights of the criminals. “Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives” (Death Penalty Paper).

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has closely studied deterrence, wrote: Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and schedule by the courts. Whatever people fear the most is likely to deter the most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred (Deterrence: In Support).

Thus, death penalty supporters claim that even the possibility that capital punishment will deter murderers from murdering again is enough reason to maintain the system. However, by comparing national homicide rates, it is clear that the death penalty does not deter crime. A study on the years pning from 1973 to 1984 illustrated that death penalty states have a generally higher homicide rate than states that do not enforce the death penalty (Paternoster). Furthermore, during the 1970’s moratorium on the death penalty, there was no unusually significant increase in the number of homicides.

In 1975, when the death penalty was not in use, the homicide rate was 8. 8 per 100,000. Unfortunately, after the death penalty was reinstated, the homicide rate rose steadily to 10. 2 in 1980 (U. S. Dept. of Justice). In fact, studies have shown that the number of homicides increases shortly after an execution (Paternoster). This phenomenon, known as the “brutalization effect,” suggests that by allowing the government to order an execution, the United States sends out the message that murder can be justified (Paternoster). In addition, more publicity surrounding executions did not decrease the number of homicides (Paternoster).

Even when people were made more aware of the consequences that go along with committing a murder, they murdered regardless. Furthermore, international comparisons indicate the unsuccessfulness of the death penalty in deterring homicide. In 1975, Canada’s homicide rate hit a peak of 3. 09 per 100,000 people. In 1976, its death penalty was abolished, and the homicide rate has decreased steadily by 42% (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty). Thus, it is clear that the deterrence effect is nonexistent. Race is another factor that causes debate on the use of the death penalty.

There exists a stigma around the death penalty that capital punishment cases are performed with an inherent bias towards people of color. Supporters of the death penalty argue that of the total number of individuals who have been executed since 1976, only 306 were black while 510 were white (“Race”) and of the total number of persons executed in 2002 alone, 53 were white while only 18 were black (“Capital”). Also, white inmates comprised more than half (57. 2%) of those executed on death row since 1976. Statistics show that whites also outnumber blacks on death row.

As of 2002, the number of white prisoners on death row, 1,931, greatly outnumbers the number of black prisoners on death row, 1,554. Furthermore, when looking at the overall defendant-victim ratios of executions, the majority (56. 81%) of cases involve a white defendant with a white victim. Thus, death penalty supporters believe that the statistics show that there are no racial prejudices in death sentencing. However, there do exist racial prejudices in the implementation of the death penalty. There are currently 1600 black prisoners under the death sentence, only 62 less than whites. U. S. Dept. of Justice) However, while whites make up 77% of the U. S. population (including Hipic persons who identify themselves as white), blacks make up only 13%. (U. S. Census Bureau). Therefore there is a clear bias in the execution of the death penalty when the overall racial makeup of the U. S. population is taken into account. Contrary to public belief, utilization of the death penalty is much more costly than keeping a criminal imprisoned for life without parole. In fact, the death penalty poses a significant financial drain on the individual states as well s on the central government, spending the same money that is used to build and maintain schools, hospitals, recreational parks, roads and highways. On death row, the average cost is $55. 14 per day to incarcerate an inmate, with the stay on death row being 12 years. This means that it will cost a state roughly $241,513. 20 per inmate on death row until they are executed. This however is not where the significant amount of money is spent. Since the U. S. Judicial System is constructed to ensure everyone fair and equal rights, inmates are entitled to the appeals process upon their death penalty sentence.

In fact, the first appeals are automatic. During the course of appeals, the cost of using the death penalty becomes significantly larger. From 1982 to 1997, the cost of capital punishment cases in the U. S. totals over $1. 6 billion dollars. Comparing the costs of the death penalty versus life imprisonment is a bit more difficult, as the cost of trial (defense and prosecution attorneys, bringing the case to court) varies. International comparisons indicate that the death penalty is not the best way to ensure public safety.

The death penalty has been abolished in our “peer” countries such as England, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany for ordinary crimes such as murder and rape. The U. S. remains retention along with China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, countries of questionable human rights practices. According to Amnesty International, while 122 countries denounce the death penalty, only 83 still implement it (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty). However, with 83 countries refusing to abolish the death penalty, 71% of world executions in 2002 took place in the U. S. , China, and Iran (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty).

With all of these executions, the United States still remains one of the most murderous places in the world. In 2000, the U. S. had the sixth highest homicide rate, at 5. 87 people per 100,000 (Int’l Comparisons of Criminal Justice Stats). Washington D. C. remains the most murderous capital in the world, with a 45. 79 per 100,000-murder rate reported in 2000 (Int’l Comparisons of Criminal Justice Stats). In terms of handgun murders, while New Zealand had two murders due to handguns, Japan fifteen, and United Kingdom thirty in 1996, the United States had 9,390 (Brady Center).

Thus, gun control should be a greater concern to Americans than the implementation of the death penalty, since we are not succeeding in ensuring our citizens’ safety, in comparison with the rest of the world. Understanding why criminals commit crime is also important in understanding the death penalty’s causes and ramifications. Mental illness is one cause and in 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of a mentally ill person violates the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The court stated: “the intuition that such an execution simply offends humanity is evidently shared across this nation,” (Capital Punishment). In a 1989 case, Justice William J. Brennan determined that executions of the mentally ill “do not further the penal goals of either retribution or deterrence” and instead is “a deliberate social imposition,” (Capital Punishment) “the ultimate denial of human rights” by the government. However, if legislation is passed that prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded, death penalty supporters argue that the justice system will result in chaos.

One debate is on the definition of mental illness; the Supreme Court believes it is individuals with IQ of 70 or below. However, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) states that it is “biological in nature, a brain disorder that affects logical, rational thought processes and emotions. ” (Hamilton) The NAMI suggests medical treatment for mentally ill offenders as a better solution to solving the problem of crime, as they usually stay longer in the hospital than if they were sentenced to life in prison.

In addition, they call for a reevaluation of the judicial definition of mental illness, (Hamilton) believing that the Supreme Court’s standards for mental illness are too stringent: Atlanta death row lawyer Stephen Bright believes very few criminals satisfy its criteria. (Holland) Moreover, if criminals cannot rationalize their actions, then the death penalty can have no effect on the decisions of future offenders. Mentally ill individuals should be punished for crime, but punishment should be “proportional to the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s mental state and the degree of moral culpability. (“Capital Punishment”) The same argument can be applied to juveniles, defined by international standards as anyone under the age of eighteen. Juveniles “lack experience, perspective, judgment and intelligence of adults and have less capacity to control their conduct and to think in long-range terms. ” (“Capital Punishment”) According to Amnesty International, only six countries have documented executions of child offenders since 1976: China, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and the United States. In addition, the U. S. carried out 19 of these executions, ore than all the other countries combined. Sixteen-year-old Sean Sellers was the last executed juvenile in the US. Amnesty International, though, says international law prohibits juvenile executions. (“Key Topics”) Not many individuals show confidence in the judicial system; only 29% of individuals report having a great deal of confidence. (US Dept. of Justice) A reason for this lack of confidence arises from the fact that juries essentially decide the outcome of death penalty trials. Death penalty supporters believe that the erratic nature of juries is not important in the death penalty issue.

Haag believes that “equality, in short, seems morally less important than justice” and “justice is independent of distributional inequalities. ” (Haag) He believes that the capricious distribution of death sentences makes no difference to whether it should exist or not; what matters is that guilty people are being punished. (Haag) However, death penalty opponents argue that it is morally unfair to place the decision in the hands of capricious juries. For example, in the Dung D. Trinh case, the first jury voted in favor of life in prison without parole, 10 to 2. But the second jury voted in favor of the death penalty, 11 to 1.

California’s Orange County public defender sums up the death penalty as depending too much “on the makeup of the juries” and “the finding of death may be entirely capricious. How can we support a death verdict that may really be a coin toss? ” (Pfeifer) Also, many jury members also believe that they are responsible for killing the person on death row. (Pfeifer) In short, the fairness of a trial depends on the makeup of the jury. Moreover, general criminological theory suggests that offenders are themselves victims of mental and societal ills and that a reduction in crime will benefit both victims and offenders. Hirschi) New York University professor of psychiatry, Dorothy Otnow Lewis research shows that most killers are damaged and victimized persons of child abuse and lifelong traumas. (Manserus) Death penalty opponents affirm that the problem of crime is not being solved properly by states. Lois Robinson, whose son Larry was executed in Texas in 1999, believes that the state does not want to put money into treating its mentally ill, potentially saving millions of lives of both victims and offenders.

Texas spends approximately two million dollars on prosecuting the average capital murder case, but falls within the bottom ten of states in per capita expenditures on mental health. (King) Only 7. 7 percent of inmates in Texas receive therapy/counseling in state correctional facilities (US Dept. of Justice). There also exist very conflicting views in terms of religion and the death penalty. People on both sides of the capital punishment argument cite some of their religious beliefs based on the contents of the Bible.

Many religious groups in support of the death penalty commonly quote Genesis: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. ” (Genesis 9:6). This passage states that men should punish each other for crimes such as murder. Those in opposition to the death penalty take their textual basis of support from the New Testament, and a famous phrase in John 8:7: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first,” (Robinson p. 1). Here, the Bible claims that no one is perfect, and therefore no one has the right to pass judgment in regards to another person’s life.

Even though many groups cite passages from religious texts, there are numerous contradictions and errors contained in both the New and Old Testaments, which put their information into question. Also, with so much controversy regarding the separation of church and state, the wisest position for a presidential candidate to take is to avoid religious arguments as much as possible. Furthermore, discussing the morality of the death penalty is not complete without considering the families of the victims. Many families believe that the killing of an offender can never make up for the loss of a precious loved one and instead can cause prolonged pain.

In addition, the judicial process, complete with appeal after appeal, is a painful and tedious process for the families involved. Marietta Jaeger, whose daughter was murdered, believes that “the continuous sequence of courtroom scenes inherent in death penalty cases only serve to keep emotional wounds raw and in pain for years. ” (Dieter) In the Dwayne Carrekar case in New Jersey, prosecutors decided to seek life in prison without parole and not the death penalty, adhering to the victim’s family’s wishes. The victim’s mother was more interested in justice and closure than the death penalty. Organizations such as the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation’s motives are to change the theme from killing to healing. (Dieter) Politicians tend to avoid the death penalty question because they believe most people support executions. However, when other options of punishment are presented, the majority of Americans do not support the death penalty. Although 77% of Americans show abstract support for the death penalty, the number drops to 41% in favor the death penalty over life in prison without parole plus restitution (Dieter).

Furthermore, a significant number of Americans have serious doubts as to the fairness of the imposing of the death penalty. 48% express concerns over the issue of racism in the application of punishment and 46% are concerned about the high costs (Dieter). An overwhelming 58% of Americans have worries over the question of innocence, and rightfully so (Dieter). Since 1973, 112 prisoners have been released from death row after finding evidence of their innocence (Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty). Furthermore, studies show that people are misinformed about the death penalty.

Only 4% believe that a person convicted of first-degree murder will spend his life in prison; the average estimate by Americans over how long a convicted murderer will spend in prison is only 15. 6 years (Dieter). Even when people were asked if they believed that a person sentenced to life in prison without parole would actually spend their life in prison, only 11% believed it (Dieter). In reality, however, two thirds of states have mandatory life in prison with no eligibility for parole sentences for murderers, and most states have at least twenty-five year minimum sentences (Dieter).

Thus, if people were correctly informed about prison sentences, they would be less likely to support the death penalty. We have found that the majority of voters do not support the death penalty when other forms of punishment are presented; we suggest that the candidate take a cautiously anti-death penalty stance. There exist serious racial, class, and mental discrepancies in the implementation of the death penalty. Furthermore, we have found that executing murderers does not have a deterrence effect on the homicide rate. Most of the world has opposed the death penalty, and we should follow the lead of our peer countries.

Almost all nations in opposition of the death penalty have lower crime rates than the United States, so we have nothing to lose but a decrease in the homicide rate by imitating them. However, in order to avoid a presidential election defeat similar to the 1988 anti-death penalty candidate Michael Dukasis, the candidate may only want to sign the international treaties promising to not actively implement the death penalty, yet not abolishing the entire system either. The candidate may wish to suggest a moratorium, similar to the halt instituted in the 1970’s, until more studies have been conducted.

By having the candidate present to the American public all of the evidence we have found, and by allowing him to cautiously sign international treaties and instituting a moratorium, he will be able to win the election and gain the respect of the international community, while simultaneously saving American lives. Reference Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers”. 12 April 2000. 4 February 2004. “Death Row Fact Sheet”. Florida Department of Corrections. 20 Feb. 2004. “Deterrence (In Opposition of the Death Penalty). ”7 February 2004. Dieter, Richard C. “Families of Murder Victims”.

Death Penalty Information Center. April 1993. “Facts About the Death Penalty”. Death Penalty Information Center Fact Sheet. 18 Feb. 2004. Death Penalty Info Center. 19 Feb. 2004. “Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty. ” Amnesty International. January 30, 2004. 10 February 2004. Hamilton, Tom- President of NAMI Texas. “The Andrea Yates Case: Family to Family. ” National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Texas. 17 September 2001. 5 February 2004. Hirschi, Travis. “Crime”. Sociology: Social Foundations of Public Issues. McGraw Hill. 2003. Pg. 107. Mansnerus, Laura. “Damaged Brains and the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center: New York Times article. July 21, 2001. 4 February 2004. & “Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976. ” Death Penalty Information Center. 4 February 2004. 21 February 2004. Sharp, Dudley. “Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty”. Justice For All. 18 October 2001. 11 February 2004. U. S. Census Bureau. The Black Population in the United States: March 2002. 19 February 2004. U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002. Table 6. 77: Prisoners under death sentence. 1 January 2000.

I interviewed Joe Neal, Deputy Probation Officer III, Mendocino County Adult Probation. I learned a lot about the Probation Officer’s job and Joe during my time interviewing him. Joe started his law enforcement career at a young age. He did not go into much detail about his career start, but did tell me that he eventually ended up being a Juvenile Court Judge. He retired then went to work at the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department. Due to the stress and shift work there he decided he would have more impact on people if he were in probation.

He applied and went through the process and was hired. His goal was to help people turn their lives around and live drug and alcohol free productive lives. Although probation is also a high stress job, Joe said he would choose this profession again if he were younger. I asked him about his daily routine and job responsibilities. Case load seemed to be the majority of his day. Reading reports, petitions and distributing cases to the 65 probation officers in his office. I am told that a pre-sentencing report can take from 8 to 12 hours to complete.

There are on average of 25 to over 100 that come in on a daily basis. On average there are from 70 to 100 cases per officer in our county at the adult probation office and 15 to 40 at juvenile probation. When I asked Joe about transfers or advancement, he smiled, almost laughed and simply said “No way. ” He explained to me that in the economic crunch and with a lack of providers in our county, things are at a stand still. When the economy is not so bad, a transfer can usually take place on a case by case basis and are recommended by a supervisor.

We got onto the subject on personal rewards of the job. Much like me, Joe takes great pride in helping people start their lives over on a positive drug and alcohol free path. Seeing people accomplish this he says “Is very rewarding. ” I asked him about the hiring process and what it takes to be a probation officer. He asked me if I was sure this is what I wanted to do for a career. He handed me a rather thick packet of papers that describe how the hiring process takes place. In reading through it, I was very impressed at the amount of information the packet contained.

The very extensive background checks, the lie detector process and personal life habits. Things like whether you have stolen a pen from work, paying your bills on time and a full credit history. The documents they need to verify your information and pages and pages of information on your previous addresses, jobs and family members, including step. It is started by applying and then applications are sorted by qualifications. There is a written exam with the State. Once the exam is passes, there is an Oral Board interview.

A copy of your driving record printout, copy of current driver’s license, sealed copies of college transcripts, copy of your college diploma, social security card, birth certificate, release forms for verification of information provided, and a handwritten autobiographical history. Once that information is verified fingerprinting takes place. When you pass all of the background the next step is to be scheduled for a physical and a psychological exam. An offer of employment is contingent with passing the physical and psychological exam.

I got the impression from this packet that if you are not a person who takes the time to keep your life in order, you can’t possibly help others learn how to either. I also noticed during the interview how short most of Joe’s answers were. I asked him why he didn’t elaborate on different questions, he told me that he learned a long time ago to get to the point quickly and you get the best answer from your questions. If they don’t have too much information to compute, you usually get an answer beyond “just because”. I noticed Joe’s office was very tidy and well organized.

I didn’t ask how much time he spends filing or organizing, but with the case loads, I imagine he has to make the time after each task to be prepared for the next duty of the day. As I was walking out, I thanked him for his time and for all of the valuable information he gave me. He then informed me that he is now retiring and his time will be spent “Eating Bon-Bon’s” I left Joe’s office, headed home and thought about what he had told me. There is a lot of information to store for my future and to meet my goals. In the end, I have decided that, yes, this is in fact what I want to do.