Law

Criminal Justice Article Review

The current paper dwells on the implications inherent in the existing criminal justice system and public opinion regarding numerous categories of convictions. Moreover, the paper aims to identify the core reasons for wrongful convictions and their effect on the community and criminal justice. The current wrongful conviction policy is analyzed and critiqued in line with the literature review conducted within the framework of this paper.

In their article, Kent and Carmichael (2015) discussed the problem of an increased number of wrongful convictions. They also found that throughout the last decade, the number of resultant exonerations also underwent a substantial increase. Kent and Carmichael (2015) identified that public confidence in the existing criminal justice and its authoritative power directly depended on the number of convictions (regardless of whether they were rightful or wrongful). According to the authors of the article, the core problem of the current criminal justice system consists of the fact that there are states that choose not to adopt the laws that accept the due process clause.

In perspective, this limits the level of protection against an increased number of wrongful convictions. Kent and Carmichael (2015) successfully identified that the due process clause was commonly disregarded in the Republican-based states while the so-called “innocence movement” was adopted by Democratic-based states. It is safe to say that the authors of the article thoroughly discussed how the policy affects the criminal justice system, its structure, and its organization. It is reflected by the problems that interfere with the implementation of a crime prevention strategy intended to reduce the number of wrongful convictions within both social and political contexts.

Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012) conducted another research in which they analyzed the impact of wrongful convictions on crime deterrence. Not surprisingly, it was found that the enforcement of this policy led to increased deterrence rates. The authors of the article mentioned that this supposition is widely criticized regardless of the practical evidence. According to Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012), wrongful convictions may have a negative influence on the criminal justice system in case if they adversely affect the balance between the innocent and the guilty. Overall, deterrence is moderately influenced by wrongful convictions because the latter exposes the public to the jeopardies of committing crimes. There are numerous circumstances that should be taken into consideration when discussing deterrence and its influence on different social layers.

The relationship between the stakeholders (local, state, and federal) can be explained by the breakdown of the data obtained by Kent and Carmichael (2015). They claimed that this relationship is highly contingent on public opinion and there are critical implications that should be taken into account. Throughout the process of investigating the relationships between the three key stakeholders, it was found that there are variables inherent in these relationships that contributed to an increase in the number of wrongful convictions (Mallicoat, 2016). This supposition is supported by the extensive evidence presented by the authors of the reviewed articles. According to Garoupa and Rizzolli (2012), the relationships between the stakeholders contain several predictors of wrongful convictions and are positively associated with the social context.

One of the constitutional issues that should be addressed by the US policymakers is poor implementation of the due process clause. Therefore, the existing criminal justice system is contingent on the need to reduce the number of wrongful convictions by means of transformation of the fundamental principles of the US criminal justice (Marion & Oliver, 2015). An in-depth review of this constitutional issue showed that there is a need to apply the due process clause more often. Nonetheless, it is not necessary to oppose any of the political parties or other governmental structures to increase the flexibility of the current approach to the wrongful conviction policy.

The criminal justice policy regarding wrongful convictions should be revised to correlate with the findings of the reviewed articles and minimize the occurrence of wrongful convictions (Miles & Raynor, 2014). One of the most significant criminal justice issues is the distinction of the existing policy. It is also important to mention that the changes in the wrongful conviction policy may have a huge impact on the internal criminal justice operations. It is important to address the issue of indefinite and ineffective local measures against wrongful convictions.

Moreover, the majority of the measures that are currently taking place are not even aimed at reducing the number of wrongful convictions at all. The effect of the revised policy on social justice can be presented as a unified approach to the problem of wrongful convictions. This point is of pivotal importance to the existing criminal justice system because the contemporary legislation presupposes that each state in the US applies its own approach to dealing with wrongful convictions (Siegel, 2015). On a bigger scale, the current policy should be revised to get in line with the evidence presented in this paper. The current US criminal justice system lacks flexibility, so it is crucial to address the issue of wrongful convictions to restore the balance of justice between the innocent and the guilty and increase the occurrence of use of the due process clause in every state.

References

Garoupa, N., & Rizzolli, M. (2012). Wrongful convictions do lower deterrence. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 168(2), 224-231. Web.

Kent, S., & Carmichael, J. (2015). Legislative responses to wrongful conviction: Do partisan principals and advocacy efforts influence state-level criminal justice policy? Social Science Research, 52(2), 147-160. Web.

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

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

Miles, H., & Raynor, P. (2014). Reintegrative justice in practice: The informal management of crime in an island community. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Siegel, L. J. (2015). Criminology: The core (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Introduction

Drug use among parolees and probationers is still very likely to happen although hundreds of programs of drug control exist throughout the United States. Nevertheless, many probationers experience drug abuse even when they are aware of the consequences of it. The drug war in Montgomery, AL has continued for several decades, yet, not everyone is happy with its outcomes. It still demands extra spending and costs a lot for the government (Rubin, 2013).

The current discourse suggests that drug use needs to be treated (such opinions were provided by some members of the City Council in Montgomery), but there are alternatives that can be implemented too. Moreover, Virginia Estates is a poor neighborhood in Montgomery that cannot afford expensive treatments of drug abusers and parolees who prefer to find drugs as soon as they are out of the prison.

Continued drug abuse can affect the probation’s outcomes and essentially result in crime recidivism. Yet, random drug testing is believed to be one of the most successful tools in preventing drug abuse (Walters, 2014). The main aim of this program is to introduce a strategy that would help prevent drug abuse in probationers. The following plan is based on the Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program.

Executive Summary

It focuses on the results of the HOPE program that had been implemented from the years 2004 to 2009; frequent random drug tests were used to control the probationers’ drug use. If probationers failed the drug test, they were arrested and sentenced to a short prison stay. Other reintegration means for probationers such as mentoring and education can be used in addition to random drug tests to ensure that participants are not motivated only by the possible sanctions and penalties.

The program can influence work efficiency of parole officers, judges, and defense lawyers. Its financing is an important task for a local government as it guarantees the improvement of the situation (Cheng, 2008). Moreover, it will also influence the crime rates in the community and reduce crimes connected to drugs if probationers follow the prescriptions and demands of the program correctly.

The drug use rates were stated to be extremely high in Montgomery, AL; Virginia Estates, as it is a poor neighborhood that has to face poverty, is also struggling with the problem of drug abuse. Crime rates are fueled by the poverty and drug use, so Montgomery police department and Montgomery City Council need to suggest new ideas and solutions to prevent the spreading of drugs.

Statement of Need

Bureau of Justice Statistics had conducted a long-term research that investigated the number of crimes committed by the offenders before or during the period when they were supervised by the community. The range of discussed crimes is wide, but it also includes drug use and similar crimes as drug possession, drug trafficking, unauthorized drug prescriptions, and others (Markman, Durose, Rantala, & Tiedt, 2016). According to the research, 0,31% of crimes, committed during the first five years after the release, involved a certain type of drug abuse: 0.16% were arrested for drug possession, 0.23% for drug trafficking, and 0.17% for other types of drug-related crimes (Markman et al., 2016).

Two in five of all sexual assaults towards college students were committed by an offender who was supposedly on drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). In Montgomery situation is similar and a great number of crimes are committed by people who are affected by drugs. The national survey conducted in 1994 states that fourteen percent of probationers used drugs when they committed their first crime after the release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d.). Thus, although drug treatment and drug control are implemented in different programs in all states, it is still a significant problem to prevent drug abuse in probationers. As to Montgomery, AL, ‘Operation Pilluted’ was implemented in 2012; it covered other states, too, but had an impact on Montgomery neighborhoods where crime rates were noticed to decrease.

Zero Addiction campaign was also implemented to address the problem of drug abuse in Alabama, especially pain relievers since the sale rates of those are extremely high. In April 2015, Montgomery Director of Public Safety discussed the problems connected to the widespread drug ‘Spice.’ The HOPE program focuses on reducing drug use; moreover, only those probationers who were confirmed to use drugs are mandated to drug treatment. This information can be provided both by the Montgomery police department and Council On Substance Abuse-NCADD. To reduce drug use in probationers and probability of a new crime, the approach to drug testing needs to be changed.

Resolution Methodology

The program tries to reduce drug use in probationers, or at least prevent the drug abuse during the probation. As the authors state, only persistent sanctions for every drug use and positive results from drug tests are able to reduce drug abuse in probationers because each time the violation is noticed, probationers are sentenced for short prison stays (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009). However, if the amount of drug use increases and several drug tests in a row prove that the probationer was under the influence of drugs during that period, the stays in jail become longer with every detected violation. Moreover, no regular meetings with the judge are required, so the program also allows decreasing the costs, but it remains effective nevertheless.

Mentoring of the probationers’ successes, engagement in community and program will also help understand the reasons behind recidivism, as well as indicate what other issues need to be addressed.

Stakeholder Identification

The program can be considered as valuable for probation officers and community workers who have to face drug use from probationers and other violations quite frequently. Montgomery Municipal Court can also take part in the program, and, if it is implemented successfully, evaluate the outcomes; however, court employees might perceive the new program negatively because they will have to complete additional tasks and commissions that might show insignificant results (Hawken & Kleiman, 2009).

The probationers themselves might also be interested in the new program, although its methods can also be perceived as too severe; however, if they are indeed aspiring to become non-marginalized members of society, this program can lead them to better reintegration if all rules are followed precisely.

Montgomery police department, as well as parole and probation officers, will also have an opportunity to assess the program; in case of correct implementation of the program, the crime levels in the neighborhood will decrease, and police workers will be able to focus on other cases, not on the probation workers. Thus, the program will supposedly reduce crime rates in the community and allow probationers avoid recidivism.

Supporting Documentation/Credentials

The HOPE probation program was used as a basis for the suggested program, so it is necessary to evaluate its success. The authors have provided the survey results that indicate which stakeholders perceived the program positively and which stakeholders stressed the program was not proven to be successful. This data can serve as supporting documentation for implementation of the program. The surveys’ results can be found in the document submitted by Angela Hawken and Mark Kleiman.

Timeline

To gain valid results that will be suitable for a thorough analysis, the program should function for at least three or six months; moreover, prior to the implementation of the program, several months will be needed to find qualified employees and calculate overheads.

Conclusion

The proposed program can significantly increase the crime rate and drug abuse in Virginia Estates, Montgomery, AL; moreover, it will help the probationers avoid recidivism and focus on reintegration in society. Probation officers will receive an opportunity to control drug use in probationers more efficiently and award penalties if needed.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Drugs and crime facts. Web.

Cheng, G. (2008). Budget tools: financial methods in the public sector. New York: CQ Press.

Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE: Executive summary. Web.

Markman, J., Durose, M., Rantala, R., & Tiedt, A. (2016). Recidivism of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Web.

Rubin, I. (2013). The politics of public budgeting: getting and spending, borrowing and balancing. New York: CQ Press.

Walters, G. D. (2014). Drugs, crime, and their relationships. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Abstract

Gun control is among the most debated and divisive issues in the modern society. It refers to the activities that are aimed at controlling the number of guns owned by individuals. Some people have argued that increased gun control can effectively address the issue of increased violent crimes and related deaths in the modern society, while others have argued to the contrary. This paper will outline a research that shows the relationship between gun control and crime rates. The paper will be essential in understanding the role of gun control policies and debate in the law enforcement and crime control. The paper concludes that gun control can not singly result into reduced rate of crime in the modern society.

Introduction

Gun control is the implementation of laws and policies which limit the number of guns held by the citizens in a given country or state. The laws also limit the number of guns being produced, imported or sold. Gun control is an activity that is aimed at controlling the number of guns owned by individuals. Gun control laws supposedly reduce the rate of crimes. The laws are laid down to control the types of guns that are held by people, the qualifications of people who are supposed to own a gun, as well as to control the number of guns owned by citizens. Safe storage of guns has to be restricted.

According to Moorhouse & Wanner (2006), fewer guns will mean that there will be fewer crimes. The linkage between gun control and the crime rates is in two steps: how gun control affects accessibility of lethal weapons and its effects on crime rates. The issue of gun control can be viewed from two perspectives. First, when gun laws are less tight, more people are likely to posses guns. Consequently, the number of crimes such as homicides will increase (Lytle, 2008).

Cases of violent crimes and killings are likely to increase since guns will fall in the wrong hands of people who will execute such crimes. On the other hand, gun control rules can be made less strict if the crime rates are high. People will be allowed to own guns as a self defence tools. This will be viewed as a way of reducing the crime rates. In fact, if the crime rates are high, this is likely to generate political debates on gun regulations. The relationship that exists between gun control and the rate of crimes can be determined in econometric sense (Lytle, 2008). This paper will outline a research that shows the relationship between gun control and crime rates.

Literature review

Various countries, states and municipalities have adapted varying gun control laws in order to regulate the rates of crime. States can be placed into two categories depending on their gun control regulations. There are those states which do not have gun control rules while there are other ones which have the gun control rules. In the states where there are gun regulations, one is supposed to have a license in order to own a gun, and there is also a time one has to wait before he gets the license for carrying a the gun.

Gun control rules are usually out laid down in a bid to control crimes. However, according to Kwon, Scott, Safranski & Bae (1997), gun control rules do not have much effect when it comes to the reduction of gun related deaths. Strict rules to control gun ownership do not have much implication on the crimes which are associated with guns. Whether the rules are made strict or not, the rates of killings are the same or they vary slightly. There are numerous laws that have been put forward to control the number of guns in states and municipalities. The results of the regulations have, however, not been to expectations.

They have been unimpressive since the gun related deaths equal the number of deaths by accidents. However, according to the research by Kwon et al., (1997), there are other factors that have been identified to have a huge impact on the number of gun related crimes. The factors are the social economic ones. They include the level of poverty in society, the rate of alcoholism and unemployment among others. The higher the level of poverty is, the higher the likelihood of gun related guns (Lytle, 2008).

When more people are in possession of guns, the likelihood of gun related deaths and crimes are usually high (Wells, 2012). However, the number of guns does not increase this risk. There must be other contributing factors such as drug abuse and alcohol influence. In addition, domestic violence can contribute to the increased risk such deaths. Lack of employment especially the youths will prompt them to engage in criminal acts so as to get money.

The youths get into drugs, and they consequently get into criminal acts. The relationship between unemployment, drug abuse and engagement in criminal acts has been documented in the past. Therefore, unless these social economic factors are addressed, gun control rules will not help in reducing the rate of crimes. The availability of fire arms does not necessarily increase the probability of gun crimes and homicides (Wells, 2012).

Gun related crimes have been on the increase over the last couple of years. The crimes have been on the news headline more frequently than ever. School shootings, as well as killings of police officers and innocent citizens, have increased. This has captured the attention of leaders and politicians to enforce gun control laws. Police officers are there to protect their lives, but their job has become a risky since more of them are being killed as they protect the citizens.

There are laws enacted to reduce these incidents. However, the gun control laws have not shown any evidence to in affecting the lives of police officers. Whether the laws are made to be stricter or not, the police officers have continued to lose their lives. Among the laws that have been developed to reduce the numbers of felonious police officers are the right to carry firearms and the waiting periods. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) argued that the enactment of laws allowing citizens to carry guns for self defence will be effective in reducing the number of crimes since this will deter the criminals from victimizing the citizens who are law abiding (Mustard, 2001).

The law was, however, not supported by many citizens and professionals. The concealed carry laws only put the risk of losing life by police through being shot by irresponsible user of the guns as well as people who want heroic defensive use of guns. It is believed that the right to carry fire arms threatens the lives of police officers. This claim has, however, not been proven right since no person with a licensed gun has been caught having shot police officers (Mustard, 2001).

Therefore, the guns used to kill the police officers are likely to be non- licensed yet the laws to control guns are being highly enforced. The right to carry guns is, however, associated with the increased cases of homicide. People who are in possession of guns are treated as criminals who acquire the guns illegally. In addition, they might have acquired the guns rightfully but they use it for unintended purposes. The indulgent in criminal acts is in most cases contributed by the social economic factors. Therefore, the increased numbers of criminals who kill the police officers have indulged into the acts due to factors relating the economy or society. These could be drug abuse, unemployment, and alcoholism among others (Mustard, 2001).

It is usually assumed that safe storage gun laws help in reducing the number of deaths that are associated with gun shots. However, the impact of the same on crime rates is usually ignored (Lott & Whitley, 2001). However, there is no empirical evidence that gun control laws reduce accidental or suicidal deaths especially among children. On the other hand, the laws are said to reduce the ability of people to use guns for the purposes of self protection. As a result, the safe storage laws are said to increase the cases of violent crimes, which are usually directed towards the law abiding citizens (Lott & Whitley, 2001).

Citizens who are in possession of guns are required to store them safely. This will help to reduce the cases of accidental shooting and suicide. It has been argued that the restrictions on safe storage of guns will also be effective in reducing the rate of crime. It will be difficult for criminals to access guns and steal them. In fact, it was suggested that the guns should either have a locked trigger or kept safe where they can not be easily accessed. Despite the fact that the action will be important and effective in reducing the incidences of accidental death, it is also said to help in reducing the crime rates but not so effectively (Lott & Whitley, 2001).

Guns are usually bought for the purpose of self defence but locking them will reduce their effectiveness because when a gun is locked, it is not readily accessible for the purposes of defending oneself. In addition, the mechanical locks of guns call for the gun to be kept unloaded (Lott & Whitley, 2001). Criminals are likely to fear attacking people since they have their self defence. However, if the guns are not locked, it will make it easier for criminals to get an access to and, in turn, the rate of crimes will rise.

It is important to note that the cost of locking a gun is very high. First, it will be costly to lock the gun in terms of monetary value (Lott & Whitley, 2001). Second, locking the guns will not enhance its convenience in defending oneself. Criminals will be likely to attack since they know that the guns are not ready for firing (Lott & Whitley, 2001).

Methodology

In testing the hypothesis of this research, variables will be used. The dependent variables will be the number of crimes that result from the irresponsible and illegal use of guns. On the other hand, the independent variables will be the rate of unemployment, level of poverty, use of drugs as well as alcoholism and the regulation of gun control rules. The dependent variables and the independent variables to be used in the research are to be based on the literature review. The study will seek to identify the relationship that exists between the independent variables and the dependent variable named above.

According to the previous studies notably the one by Kwon et al. (1997), there exists a positive relationship between the rate of employment and the number of gun related crimes and homicides. As the number of unemployed people increases, the number of gun related crimes are also said to increase. Therefore, this study will be seeking to proof this finding and, therefore, a positive relationship will be expected between unemployment and the rate of crimes.

Further, a positive relationship is also expected in the relationship between the rate of gun related crimes and the level of poverty. The same kind of relationship will be expected between the level of drug and alcohol consumption and the number of gun crimes. In addition, the overall relationship between the gun control rules and the rate of crimes will be established. This model will be seeking to identify the relationships that exist between the named variables.

The people to be included in the model are the youth between the ages of 18 years to 35 years old. The reason as to why this age group was selected is because the young people are the ones who are mostly involved in gun related crimes. Despite the fact that the rest of the population is also involved, the number is much less as compared to the youths. The hypothesis of this study, therefore, will be to test how other factors rather than gun possession contribute to increased crime rates. Tightening the gun control rules is not likely to result into reduced crime rates. There are other factors that contribute to the crimes, and they need to be addressed as a first priority.

Data for the purpose of this study is to be collected from past researches, which have been carried out in the past. Data for poverty levels in the states is to be gathered as well as data recorded for the other variables (alcoholism and drug use and unemployment). In each of the selected states, the collected data are to be compared with the rate of crimes. Then, the rules put forward to control gun possession will be also addressed.

Once the data have been collected, they will be presented in a simple descriptive statistics form which one can see the mean and standard deviation. Then a t- test between both the independent variables and the dependent variables will be carried out so as to evaluate the significant differences that exist between the variables before conducting a linear regression to evaluate how effective gun control rules can be in relation to the other factors that are said to favour the increase in the number of crime rates. It is important to note that research on the relationship between gun control rules and the rate of crimes has previously been impeded by not reliable data. This study will seek to gather data that are as accurate as possible.

Results and analysis of the data

Two tables were developed for the results. The first one presented the descriptive statistics and the t- test values while the other one represented the regression results. From the results, it is clear that the average number of deaths related to gun crime was higher in states where there were no gun control rules as compared to the number of deaths in the states where there were gun control rules. The ratio was 24.4:19.6 respectively.

In addition, it was found out that the rate of unemployment in countries where there were no gun control rules was higher. Also, the level of poverty in those states was slightly higher. However, the level of alcohol consumptions was relatively the same in all the states (that is) those with gun control rules and those with no gun control rules. In the states where there were gun control rules, the youths represented the highest percentage relative to the number of youths in the states with no gun regulation rules.

It was also found out that many people in states with gun control rules resided in the urban centres. In states with no gun control rules, the number of people living in urban centres was relatively lower. The results of descriptive statistics and the t-test are represented in the table below (Kwon et al., 1997).

Descriptive Statistics and t-values

States with Laws States without Laws

(LAW=1; n=26) (LAW=0, n=24)

Variables Mean SD Mean SD t-values

DEATHS (per 100,000) 19.58 7.80 24.44 8.71 2.08b

UEMP (%) 5.07 1.13 5.66 1.02 1.95

POVERTY (%) 11.40 2.70 14.87 4.71 3.17a

Urban (%) 73.14 11.76 62.80 15.82 2.64a

ALCOHOL (Per Capita) 2.42 0.33 2.47 0.80 0.29

AGE 18-35 (1000) 692.96 40.28 344.37 404.74 2.228b.

In the representation of the linear regression calculations the overall model was n = 50, whereby for states with gun regulation rules n = 26 while for the states with no gun regulations, n = 24. For all the models, R² figure was at least 0.657. F = 6.91 (p = 0.000) for models of states with no gun control rules. The evidence shows that all the variables in the model gave the expected results and that among nations where there are gun control rules, the rate of crimes was low as compared to that of the states where there were no gun control rules. States where there were gun controls, the cases of homicide were 3 folds fewer than in the states where there were no gun control rules. The results for the linear regression models are represented in the table below (Kwon et al., 1997).

Regression Results

(Dependent Variable Number of Firearm Death per 100,000 Populations)

Overall with Laws without Laws

Regression Regression Regression

Variables coefficients t-values coefficients t-values coefficients t-values

Constant -14.599 1.503 -22.649 1.698 -1.159 0.072

LAW -2.844 1.356 NA NA NA NA

UNEMP 0.614 0.722 2.149 1.591 -0.143 0.116

POVERTY 1.347 4.340a 0.892 2.357b 1.367 2.345b

URBAN 0.071 0.880 0.240 2.408b 0.055 0.261

ALCOHOL 3.779 2.052b 2.178 1.059 -1.874 0.431

AGE1824 0.002 1.211 -0.003 1.009 0.007 2.914a

R2 0.657 0.832 0.765

F-value 8.510a 9.301a 6.914a

A p < 0.01, b p<0.05, c p<0.10

NA = Not Applicable.

Observable from the results is the fact that the social economic variables are important when considering the number of homicides and gun related crimes. Among this, the most important are the level of poverty and alcohol consumption. However, from the results, the relationship between unemployment and the number of gun crimes was found to be negative which was unexpected. The negative relationship could have resulted from the multiple collinearly that exists between poverty level and the rate of unemployment. The rest of the results were all expected. For instance, poverty is the major factor that can be attributed to the increased number of crimes as because people living in poverty might commit crimes due to their desperation or to meet their needs (Kwon et al., 1997).

Young people are the ones who are mostly involved in gun crimes. Their involvement is in large numbers for states where there are no gun control rules. The reason for their increased participation could be attributed to lack of employment and drug consumption. There are a large number of young people who live in urban centres, and they are connected with the gun crimes.

In general, it can be observed that gun control rules are effective in reducing the rate of crimes because as the results show, the states where there are gun control laws, have relatively less rate of crimes as compared to the rate of crime in states with no gun control laws. The number of deaths related to guns was higher in states where there were no gun control rules as well. However, the gun control rules were not the major factors contributing to the crimes despite the fact that they are effective. The major contributors of crimes were found to be the social economic factors. Therefore, in addressing the issue of increasing crime rates, it will be important to first consider the social economic factors.

Conclusion

The rate of gun related crimes have been on the increase causing concern to the government leaders and politicians. More deaths related to guns are reported, and more crimes are being committed. There are countries such as the United States of America where people are allowed to own guns for self defence. When people have the authority to own guns, there is a probability that criminals will have easy access to guns and, therefore, more gun crimes are likely to be reported.

On the other hand, when law abiding citizens are in possession of guns, criminals will be afraid of attacking them since they will fear being shot. Therefore, the rate of crimes will reduce. For this to be effective there should be laws which are put forward to regulate gun ownership and usage. The laws should be made strict to reduce the chances of criminals accessing them or using them to commit crimes. This will help in reducing the rates of crimes and killings by a high percentage.

In order to reduce the rate of crimes, however, gun control rules are not enough. There are other factors that contribute to crimes and need to be addressed. Among the factors that contribute to engagement in crimes are the social economic factors such as unemployment, poverty level, and alcohol and drug consumption among others. These factors together with the gun control laws enforcement will be effective in combating the high rate of crimes.

References

Kwon, I., Scott, B., Safranski, S. R. & Bae, M. (1997). The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56(1). 41-50.

Lott, J. R. & Whitley, J. E., (2001). Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime. Journal of Law and Economic, XLIV.

Lytle. M. (2008). Policing, drugs and the homicide decline in New York City in the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(1), 385-414.

Moorhouse, J. C. & Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal, 26(1).

Mustard, D. B. (2001). The Impact Of Gun Laws On Police Deaths; Journal of Law and Economics, XLIV.

Wells, W. (2012). The effects of gun possession arrests made by a proactive police patrol unit. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(2), 253 – 271.

Introduction

The legalization of marijuana in the U. S. has become one of the most debated topics in the last few years. Even though numerous studies have proved cannabis to be much safer than alcohol and tobacco, most U.S. states have strict laws with regards to marijuana use, possession, and distribution. Medicinal use of marijuana is legal in 25 states, and in 18 states, the possession of marijuana has been decriminalized. Legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would be beneficial for the economy and public health; moreover, it would help to decrease the presence and profitability of illegal drug distribution channels, resulting in lower street crime levels.

Increased revenues

With half of the American states not allowing the sale of marijuana even for medical use, all the money from the illegal distribution of cannabis goes to the criminal drug channels. However, if the sale of marijuana were to be legalized, the vast majority of current and potential users would obtain it from legal channels. Since sale and distribution taxes would be applied to the legal distribution channels, the legalization of cannabis would create an additional source of revenue for the government.

Better law enforcement

Secondly, the legalization of marijuana would increase the effectiveness of police and law enforcement services. Today, in the states where cannabis is illegal, many police officers spend a considerable amount of time following and arresting street marijuana suppliers, people who grow cannabis, as well as those in possession of the drug. While these offenses are relatively minor, they take a large share of the officers’ time. Legalization of marijuana would ensure that this time is spent on more serious offenses, such as violent crimes, hate crimes, theft, and burglary, thus leading to a more effective law enforcement system.

Medicinal use

Another argument for the legalization of marijuana is the evidence of its positive effect on the health of patients suffering from certain conditions. For instance, it has been proven that marijuana helps people who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There are currently no medications that could provide relief to PTSD patients; however, cannabis can alleviate the symptoms by replenishing endocannabinoids, which can deactivate traumatic memories and decrease chronic anxiety, as well as to enhance the quality of sleep. Other medicinal uses of marijuana include the treatment of epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and even cancer: the U.S. National Cancer Institute has recently admitted that marijuana can indeed kill cancer cells, thus inhibiting tumor growth. Finally, marijuana is widely used as a pain suppressor, which means that is could potentially provide relief to patients suffering from painful chronic and incurable conditions.

The decrease in drug cartels’ presence

Lastly, the distribution of marijuana in the U. S. constitutes a significant share of business for drug cartels. The legalization of marijuana would shut off this revenue channel, which could potentially help to decrease the overall presence of drug cartels in the country.

Conclusion

All in all, I believe that marijuana should be legalized and sold across the territory of the U. S. under certain restrictions – for instance, to people over the age of 18. The legalization of marijuana will have several substantial advantages for the U. S. economy and the quality of life of people who could benefit from the controlled use of the drug. Furthermore, it would result in increased efficiency of law enforcement and help to eliminate some illegal drug suppliers from the U. S. drug market.

Introduction

The adultification of juveniles is something that has taken centre stage in the criminal justice system. Many countries and states have implemented new laws aimed at sentencing more children in adult courts (Norozi & Moen 2016). The essay will present four unique stages. The first stage gives an analysis of the socially constructed concept of childhood. The essay will go further to analyse the issue of identification of young offenders. The next part of the paper will examine how the identification of juvenile offenders has impacted the punishment of young people. The final stage of the essay will offer evidence-based resolutions that can be used to transform the situation. The conclusion of the paper will restate and summarise the major points discussed in the essay. The main thesis or argument presented in the essay is that the current juvenile justice system should be changed “to include appropriate supervision plans that do not jeopardise public safety” (Bolin 2014, p. 161).

Identification of Juvenile Offenders and the Punishment of Young People

The issue of juvenile justice cannot be clearly understood without having a proper definition of childhood. The term “childhood” is a concept that derives its meaning from society. This kind of social construction explains why different societies will have their unique definitions of childhood. The meaning has changed significantly within the past centuries. Norozi and Moen (2016) indicate that a person cannot experience childhood. This means that childhood is an unnatural concept that is defined by man. Biological immaturity is experienced differently in human beings. Before the 20^th century, people were observed to take huge responsibilities at an early age. When it comes to the issue of sexual behaviour, the concept of childhood is treated differently.

Child-centeredness is, therefore, a modern idea that emerged towards the end of the 19^th century. This analysis shows conclusively that each society has a clear understanding of what childhood entails. The outstanding fact is that every society or community appears to have a common idea of childhood. This is the case because many global communities view individuals below the age of 18 as children (Norozi & Moen 2016). Many laws and policies have therefore been designed in such a way that they treat individuals below the age of 18 differently (Pitts 2015). Unfortunately, young people have been observed to commit heinous crimes. The situation has led to numerous issues revolving around the treatment of adults and children in the criminal justice system. It should, therefore, be agreed that childhood is a socially constructed concept.

The social definition of childhood is something that has influenced the criminal justice system. Throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries, many nations acknowledged the fact that juveniles required special treatment and attention. Norozi and Moen (2016) argue that they were different from adults in terms of decision-making, sexual behaviour, and interpretation of the law. From 1945, many states in the United began to develop new justice systems aimed at addressing the legal needs of juveniles. However, the recent past has been characterised by the continued adultification of juveniles. Consequently, the criminal justice system has been changing significantly to address the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Pitts (2015) believes strongly that many societies are no longer upholding the traditional definition of childhood, especially in their criminal justice systems. With many juveniles committing heinous crimes in different societies, policymakers have been implementing new laws to ensure such offenders are sentenced in adult courts. This development is what has led to the adultification of young offenders. Juvenile officers in such legal systems have been “focusing on the welfare and treatment of young criminals” (Bolin 2014, p. 94). With many young people lacking adequate representation, the adultification process has transformed the nature of punishment available to them.

Studies have revealed that over 100,000 young people are prosecuted in the United Kingdom every single year (Pitts 2015). The most astounding fact is that majority of such offenders entering different adults courts are not imprisoned for serious crimes. On the contrary, such offenders are usually prosecuted for minor offences. A small percentage of such culprits are usually arrested for serious criminal offences such as murder or robbery. Consequently, many young offenders have continued to receive harsh punishments that are designed for adults.

After convictions, the offenders are usually charged as adults and eventually incarcerated (Goldson 2013). Some states have strict laws that ensure the convicted youths serve their terms in jails designed for adults. Since the year 1990, the number of juveniles being sentenced as adults has increased by over 208 per cent (Pitts 2015). Experts believe strongly that more youths will find themselves in adult courts and jails in the future. These facts show conclusively that more youths incarcerated in adult jails are usually exposed to numerous risks such as sexual abuse and assault.

Juvenile court judges possess the best skills to handle the legal needs of juvenile offenders. Unfortunately, the judgments are usually made by judges in adult courts. This practice explains why more juveniles have not been able to receive appropriate sentencing or punishment for their offences. This has been the case despite the fact that juvenile court judges can offer appropriate judgments after investigating the issues surrounding the presented case. The other important issue to consider is that many young offenders do not have access to competent juvenile lawyers to offer the required legal counsel (Crofts 2016). This gap explains why many youth offenders end up being sentenced and prosecuted as adults in different communities across the world.

The issue of race has faced the global criminal justice system for decades. Many adults of colour have been affected disproportionately by the criminal justice policies in different parts of the world. In America, for example, statistics have indicated that African Americans and Latinos had higher chances of being imprisoned after committing minor offences (Crofts 2016). The same problem has continued to affect more juveniles who find themselves in the criminal justice system. This problem has mainly been caused by the adultification of young people. A study conducted by Goldson (2013) indicated that most of the young offenders in the nation’s adult system are immigrants or from minority racial groups.

It is therefore agreeable that young offenders or suspects who are tried as mature people face harsh punishments usually designed for adults (Crofts 2016). Such juveniles are usually placed in different adult jails or prisons. The sentencing of youth offenders follows similar guidelines designed for adults. That being the case, such youths may get life sentences without any possibility of parole. Pitts (2015) indicates that the only sentence that has been omitted for youths is that of death.

After completing their sentences, imprisoned youths become disoriented because of stigmatisation and guilt (Bolin 2014). This kind of stigma explains why such ex-conflicts find it hard to get good jobs. The consequences associated with an adult conviction can be far-reaching for youth people. This is the case because they find it hard to cope with the abuse and stigma associated with the conviction. Additionally, adjudicating youths within the adult criminal system usually results in negative impacts. This is a clear indication that the current adultification of young people fails to promote the safety of the public.

The current evidence, therefore, supports the importance of a policy change. The current statutes have transformed the kind of punishment available to young offenders. More often than not, youths are forced to serve life sentences despite the fact that they are treated like children by their respective societies. The issue of adultification has continued to affect the welfare of many young people negatively. The malpractice also disorients more youths who have the potential to transform their communities. This problem can, therefore, be addressed by returning every child to the juvenile criminal justice system (Goldson 2013). Additionally, communities should identify and avail new services to youths in order to reduce the number of juvenile offenders.

Conclusion

This essay has shown conclusively that the term childhood is socially constructed and is defined differently in many societies. A common consensus regarding the definition of childhood will address the problem of adultification. The increasing number of youth offenders sentenced in adult courts is something that has transformed the nature of punishment available to juveniles (Goldson 2013). The malpractice has made it impossible for many youths to achieve their goals in life. New policies aimed at placing youth offenders in juvenile courts have the potential to deal with this problem. Provision of evidence-based human services will ensure more youths do not commit various offences. Such measures will improve the situation and promote social welfare.

Reference List

Bolin, R 2014, ‘Adultification in juvenile corrections: A comparison of juvenile and adult officers’, Scholar Commons, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-241.

Crofts, T 2016, ‘Reforming the age of criminal responsibility’, South African Journal of Psychology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 436-448.

Goldson, B 2013, ‘Unsafe, unjust and harmful to wider society: grounds for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales’, Youth Justice, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.111-130.

Norozi, S & Moen, T 2016, ‘Childhood as a social construction’, Journal of Educational and Social Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 75-80.

Pitts, J 2015, ‘Youth crime and youth justice 2015-2020’, Youth & Policy, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 31-42.

Introduction

Gun control refers to restrictive efforts to control sales, ownership, distribution and use of guns among Americans. Gun control issue has divided the Americas into three groups with proponents, opponents and neutral people. People who support strict and tough measures on guns claim that the laws would restrict access by criminals and children and limit injuries and deaths from guns.

On the other hand, people against gun control laws believe that such laws will not have any meaningful effect on criminals, but rather violate their constitutional right. Many critics have noted that increased lawful access to guns would result in few cases of crimes and shooting. Gun control issue has become extremely difficult to tackle because of politics involved.

Access to guns has been a part of Americans’ tradition and history. In modern society, however, new issues about gun ownership and use have emerged, which have necessitated the call for gun control (Lexington, 2013). The US is regarded as a democratic society. In such societies, guns should have limited roles because their presence put the whole country at risk.

Politics has affected any potential contributions to workable solutions. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun stakeholders are major political financiers and lobbying against any controls of guns. Moreover, politicians fear that they could lose a huge number of voters and rate poorly in public opinion polls if they introduce stringent control over gun ownership and use. At the same time, politicians who support guns and push for Americans’ rights feel like they do not have sympathy for the families of mass shootings and gun deaths.

Issue Perspectives

Gun Rights

In 2008, the Supreme Court made a fundamental ruling that upheld the right of the US citizens to have arms for self-defence and hunting. It made a similar ruling in 2010 in which it expanded the right of people to bear arms in States and cities (Adams, 2013).

These rulings took place before the recent events of Colorado shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has expressed its opposition to federal regulations against gun ownership, whereas other bodies and the public have favoured federal gun control. Some of the gun control laws are in the Gun Control Act 1968 and the National Firearms Act 1934. These laws only accounted for sales, usage, ownership, and spread of arms.

These laws also aim to ensure that wrong people do not possess guns. Such people include people with questionable backgrounds, children, and mental health cases. Most gun-related attacks relate to guns in the wrong hands of children and juvenile. The law will ensure that minors do not gain access to guns. The laws will restrict access to guns. In addition, supports believe that the implementation of gun control policy would eliminate cases of criminals owning guns.

On the other hand, gun control laws cannot eliminate guns from the public or reduce their lethal consequences. People need guns in order to protect themselves and their property. Besides, it is a legitimate right for Americans to have guns and other weapons.

People are the sole culprit, and guns only act as weapons of murder or crime. In most cases, guns used in crimes are illegal, stolen, smuggled, or not registered. Gun control laws would make gun ownership difficult as opposed to the provision in the constitution. Therefore, many people will think that such controls deny them their rights.

Public Opinion

Since these two deadly events, the American support for gun control has grown steadily. According to some survey results by Huff Post, 55 per cent of the Americans believed in strict gun control laws, while 13 per cent claimed that such laws should not be strict. Still, 27 per cent of the respondents did not see the need to change gun control laws. Shootings in the recent past informed the decisions of most Americans to advocate for strong and strict gun control laws (Page, 2013).

Activists and the public have supported strong and strict gun control laws for a while. There are many reasons for gun control, but the chief reason is to ensure the safety of individuals. Supporters have claimed that such laws would reduce cases of rampant shootings and firearm-related accidents and deaths. There is a narrow opportunity for Americans to address the issue of gun control and violence.

While some of the lawmakers have expressed their strong opinions on gun control, others are reluctant. There are proposed laws to restrict and delay permits for people who have shown or complain consistency about mental disorders (E.B, 2014). Law enforcement officials should get court orders to restrict such individuals who have shown tendencies of gun violence or mental disorders from owning guns. This approach, however, has drawn criticism regarding civil liberties and the right to gun ownership among the mentally disabled.

Most Americans use firearms for suicide, too, especially people with mental problems. Gun control laws would make sure that people with mental trauma do not gain access to guns. Moreover, such people increase the chances of arming others with guns already in their possession.

The NRA and people who are against gun control laws also have valid reasons for their positions. They believe that such laws shall only put pressure on ordinary citizens who abide by the law, but not the targeted criminals. Therefore, such laws do not have any beneficial use. Based on such notions, we have to look at the pros and cons of gun controls and develop stringent solutions, which can reduce deaths and accidents from firearms by a significant number.

Gun is a dangerous weapon that only serves the purpose of killing. It is, therefore, only reasonable if few people possess guns. Still, criminals have gained access to guns because of weak laws. However, if laws ban people with criminal records from owning guns, then criminals would find it difficult to have guns. This would also restrict cases of children possessing guns.

Video games, sport shooting, hunting, or some advertisements have glamorized possession of guns and their roles in society. These activities fail to account for the fatal consequences of recklessness with guns. The policy should address the gun culture among the public, as well as desensitize unnecessary ownership of guns. Gun control laws would ensure that people account for all firearms in their possession. This act would reduce cases of violent crimes and gun-related accidents and deaths.

The most cited reasons for gun control laws related to the number of deaths and accident-related to guns. Opponents of gun control laws claim that the implementation of gun control acts shall only affect law-abiding Americans. On the other hand, criminals will get their guns by other ways like smuggling, black market, or through theft from registered owners.

Given that the right to own a gun is a part of the American constitution and by extension, an individual’s right, it will be difficult to take that right way from citizens because gun owners will protest in order to protect their right. While the law provides the provision to own a gun, the focus should be on the personal responsibility of the gun owner. In the past, people have engaged in violence involving guns, which lead to deaths. The media have played their roles by claiming that such deaths result from sense use of guns.

One must question the role and responsibility of the gun owner. Gun owners should take control of the places in which they keep their weapons. In other words, we have to keep guns away from people who should not gain access to them. In most cases, minors who cause deaths and injuries by guns normally get them from their homes. This shows that guns in homes do not have secure places to restrict accessibility.

Gun owners need adequate training on handling guns because many people own guns, but they do not observe gun safety and usage. People must spend time in order to learn about proper usage and safety of guns. This is the only way to limit gun casualties.

Training on the safety of guns should also extend to kids. Proper training can reduce the mystery surrounding guns, which children wish to explore. Such approaches can reduce cases of minor shooting others. We have to note that many people rushed to purchase guns in the recent past for protection. Consequently, the government reacted by introducing strict gun control laws.

Challenges to Gun Control

From various reactions from different sections of the country, it would be difficult for Americans to achieve gun control policies. Many people who call for gun controls are racially and geographically diverse. These situations have hampered potential reforms in gun ownership and use. In addition, Americans have expressed diverse opinions. In other words, there is no consensus on the issue of gun control because Americans have different experiences with guns. In most cases, calls are mainly stronger after shooting has happened. However, any attempts soon fade away as the public and lawmakers turn to other issues.

Conclusion

The issue of gun control in the US remains extremely delicate. Gun ownership and use have become important issues because of the mass shooting that has left many people dead and badly injured. Politics has even escalated the issue further. Since guns are a part of Americans’ tradition and protected by constitutional rights, any attempts to pass new laws have been regarded as attempts to infringe on such rights.

Americans understand the role of the government in protecting the lives of its citizens, as well as protecting their constitutional rights. Although many lawmakers have opposed new laws on gun control, some have realised the need to introduce new restrictions, tightening existing gun laws, including background checks and mental screening for buyers. However, these potential reforms have slackened and weakened over time because of different public and political opinions.

Today, many Americans remain deeply divided about the issue of gun control. Meanwhile, mass shootings continue. It is imperative to understand current events and pass appropriate laws to control gun ownership and use with the aim of combating public mass shooting and gun massacres.

Appendix

Honesty Statement

This is my original research on the issue of Gun Control in the US.

Statistics

References

Adams, J. (2013). Handgun Control Debate. Web.

E.B. (2014). Gun control in America: Lies, damned lies and statistics. The Economist. Web.

Lexington. (2013). Gun control: America’s gun divide. The Economist. Web.

Page, S. (2013). USA TODAY Poll: Public support for gun control ebbs. USA TODAY. Web.

Introduction

According to Goff (2014), the tough on crime approach to criminal justice refers to the use of severe punishment on individuals that commit offenses. The approach emphasizes “punishment as a primary, and often sole, response to crime” (Goff, 2014, p. 15). A majority of people possess beliefs that are difficult to substantiate. One of the convictions is the tough on crime belief. It entails the credence that a criminal justice system, which uses severe punishment on criminals, helps to deal with lawbreakers. Fournier-Ruggles (2011) argues that the tough on crime approach relies on “retribution instead of rehabilitation and assumes a strong notion of individual responsibility” (p. 21). According to Fournier-Ruggles (2011), individuals embrace the tough on crime policies due to perceptions that the media propagate. The media raise concerns over an increase in crime rates and absence of tough sentences to punish the offenders. Eventually, people believe that the only way to curb crimes is by implementing stringent rules. The government of Canada believes in the use of the tough on crime approach to curb felony.

Characteristics of Tough on Crime Approach

According to Fournier-Ruggles (2011), the tough on crime approach has numerous features. The approach is characterized by a high number of arrests. The primary objective of the tough on crime method is to ensure that criminals pay for their mistakes. Consequently, the system results in an increase in the rate of arrests. For instance, the use of the tough on crime policy has led to many people being jailed in Canada (Goff, 2014). A majority of the Canadian federal prisons have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of prisoners since the enactment of the policy. Another characteristic of the tough on crime approach is punitive sentencing. The policy aims at punishing criminals and deterring people from engaging in illegal activities. Thus, individuals that are found guilty of any crime get punitive sentences as a way to discourage others.

Andrews and Bonta (2010) allege, “Increased racial profiling and community surveillance are some of the characteristics of the tough on crime approach” (p. 41). Criminals are profiled based on their race, which results in prejudice against particular races that are found to have a high number of offenders. Andrews and Bonta (2010) maintain that racial profiling is what made the Canadian government come up with Toronto Antiviolence Intervention Strategy. The strategy aims at mitigating crimes in high-risk communities through punitive measures. Indeed, there is a high presence of law enforcers in the communities that are considered to produce a large number of criminals. A majority of these communities comprise people of color and the poor. It signifies that the tough on crime policy is not race-neutral as the conservative government may claim. Other characteristics of the tough on crime approach include the “resurgence of the death penalty and a departure from the juvenile justice system” (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 45).

Criticism of Tough on Crime Approach

Opponents of the tough on crime approach maintain that severe punishment does not deter crimes. Instead, it may intensify crimes. Individuals convicted for minor offenses that get severe penalties might come out of prison as hardened criminals. The critics claim that the use of punitive measures to deal with criminals is barbaric, archaic and simplistic. It demands “a lot of policy analysis and creative thinking to reduce the recidivism rate and ensure fewer people engage in criminal activities” (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 48). Thus, severe punishment is not the ultimate solution to crimes. Instead, the government should deal with unemployment, poverty, systemic racism, and substance abuse. These are some of the factors that contribute to increasing crimes.

According to Eilkann (2007), perpetrators of crime are rather rational actors when they organize and commit criminal acts. Criminals are likely to commit an offense if the marginal benefits of executing the felony exceed the marginal loss. Eilkann (2007) argues that criminals are liable to committing crimes even after their release from prison if they realize that the chances of benefiting are high. The tough on crime approach does not boost the marginal advantage of living a life free of crimes. Critics of the approach claim that crime prevention policies can only be effective if they augment the secondary benefit of living a crime-free life. The use of tough on crime approach does not help to curb crime. Instead, it adds to the cost of controlling crimes at the expense of the citizens.

According to the humanitarian point of view, crime is a social challenge that should be resolved by focusing on its basic causes. Rather than using punitive measures to curb crimes, the governments ought to concentrate on creating employment, lessening cultural deprivation, and offering human services. In other words, the states ought to look for ways to give criminals a chance to reform. According to Goff (2014), the United States has realized that strict punishment does not help to curb crimes. Goff (2014) argues that a majority of the Canadian judges do not prefer severe punishment.

The judges feel that the sanctions deny them an opportunity to sentence lawbreakers according to their offenses. The tough on crime approach ravages families, lives and limited public resources (Eilkann, 2007). The method leads to the conviction of non-violent drug offenders but does not address the problem of drug addiction. An analysis of the United States’ criminal justice system concluded that the money spent to jail drug offenders is adequate to facilitate drug rehabilitation programs.

Opponents of the tough on crime approach argue that the method leads to increase in the number of individuals under pre-trial custody. The antagonists argue that the approach violates the constitutional assurance of supposed innocence. Besides, the tough on crime approach denies offenders the right to reasonable bail. Goff (2014) maintains that a majority of the aboriginal juveniles are denied bonds in Canada. People criticize the tough on crime approach because it aims at protecting the society and not rehabilitating or taking care of the criminals (Mauer, 2010). In return, juvenile offenders end up getting adult sentences if convicted of violent crimes. Mauer (2010) alleges that the tough on crime approach distorts the difference between juvenile and adult offenders. Consequently, the approach deprives the juveniles of the opportunity to join rehabilitation centers. The juveniles are incarcerated together with adults leading to their hardening.

Conclusion

The tough on crime approach is not effective in curbing criminal activities. Consequently, I disagree with this method of dealing with crimes. Using severe punishment like long sentences acts a temporary solution. Individuals that go to prison are bound to come out at one point. Once the criminals come out of prisons, they reunite with the community only to find the conditions that made them commit crimes unchanged. Eventually, they end up engaging in the same crimes. Incarceration does not address the factors that lead to people engaging in crimes. Instead, it only stops people from engaging in crimes temporarily.

The increase in unemployment rate, poverty, and racial segregation are some of the factors that force people to commit crimes. Hence, if a government wishes to fight crimes, it should focus on these factors. Proponents of the tough on crime approach do not acknowledge that the method contributes to increasing in overall recidivism. The financial implications of this process are unjustifiable. Rather than spending a lot of money to incarcerate juvenile criminals, it would be imperative to take them to rehabilitation centers where they can be molded and become influential people in the future.

The tough on crime approach leads to the rise in the number of prisoners. Consequently, the method is expensive as a government is forced to increase the budget spent in running prisons. Apart from the increase in government expenditure, the tough on crime approach contributes to increasing poverty level in the society especially if a breadwinner to a family is arrested. Petty offenders spend a long time in prison denying them an opportunity to engage in economic activities. Once a person comes out of jail, they depend on their relatives for a long time since it is hard to get a job. Such individuals become a burden to the families. The tough on crime approach is premised on malicious “realistic” and vengeance-oriented model. The use of the approach leads to increase in insecurity within the society. Petty offenders who receive serious punishment get annoyed and harbor a grudge against those that resulted in their arrest. Once they are out of prison, they become a threat to the society.

References

Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39-55.

Eilkann, P. (2007). Tough-on-crime myth: Real solutions to cut crime. New York: Insight Publishing Co.

Fournier-Ruggles, L. (2011). The cost of getting tough on crime: Isn’t prevention the policy answer? Journal of Public Policy, Administration and Law, 2(1), 19-27.

Goff, C. (2014). Criminal justice in Canada (6th ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education.

Mauer, M. (2010). Why are tough on crime policies so popular? Stanford Law and Policy Review, 11(1), 9-15.