Criminology Case

Question 1:

There are numerous explanations behind an offender's motivation to commit a crime. However regardless of the potential explanations, all people including criminals are reasonable and rational actors as dictated by the classical school of criminology. The acknowledgement of individual responsibility for personal actions is an indispensable constituent to the stability of society. When social cohesion breaks down in society and social isolation is great, society loses its traditional social control mechanisms and eventually suffers from a high crime rate (Linden, 323). A society's application of its control mechanisms is a fundamental attribute considered to calculate the potential consequence of a person's actions. In addition, it is based on that calculation that a person decides their course of action. Nevertheless, it is not the only thing that is a taken into consideration. It is ultimately a person's desire for the advancement of self-interest that leads to commit crimes. Furthermore, it is the frustration for the inability to create from coherent connections between idealized goals, such as wealth and power, and enforced ideals, like hard work and education which are strong motives to break societal laws. Relating back to Merton's theory, anomie is a disjuncture between social goals and ideals, which means to achieve goals (Linden, 324). This is further reinforced by the common suggestion of the strain theory which dictates blocked opportunities in education and jobs are negative experiences that correlate to stress and other negative emotions which cause people to search for illegitimate alternatives to goal accomplishment. Thus, it is the instigated negative emotions that cause uncontainable anger due to an insufficient amount of desirable opportunities that essential heightens the probability of crime. Moreover, crime often offers a method of reacquiring the respect and acknowledgement of negative situations, like lack of advancement opportunities, often disintegrate. It is not uncommon that a person would use a crime, such as assault or robbery, to re-establish a property, like strength, courage or wealth, which they feel they have been robbed of. The various examples and potential explanations above prove that there are vast reasons which would motive people to commit crime. Although justifications are important but even more significant is the prevention.

The minimization of future crime does not connote to an increase in the quantity or enforcement of laws, but rather the innovation of equal opportunity. The further establishment of laws and punishments will not prevent crime. Although, it is believe stricter regulations will deter people from committing crime that is simply a momentary solution, and ultimately heighten the harshness of punishment, which would generate hatred based on the belief of unjust social treatment. Conversely, one could suggest an issuance of punishments consistent with the crime to those who deserve it. This determination of guilt would be best determined by the consideration of all the circumstances an individual faced prior to the crime acted as motives to illegitimate actions. Additionally, the integration of social welfare programs would offer individuals that would have been robbed of opportunities an equal chance at societal success. Having social welfare programs, accessible higher education, keeping the tuition as low as possible by maintaining pressure on governments will decrease crime (Lecture 9, Slide 18). This would essentially emphasize collective values in society rather than the frequent emphasis on individual wealth and status that often promote crime. Although it was previously thought, by definition deterrence was used to achieve through the fear of punishment based on rationally calculated set of punishments that was assumed to work because it was felt that most reasonable people would follow the same logic (Linden, 266), current society shows the introduction of new opportunities reduces the incentive for crime. As a result, punishments are a one method of crime reduction, but collective social innovation for equal opportunities is a very strong alternative

Question 2:

Although there are a variety of procedures directed at the elimination of racism in the criminal justice system one of the most preeminent methods is the collection of race-based statistics. Yet, despite this method's pre-eminence it presents fractional verification on the racism issue. This justification is most palpable when analyzing statistics which calculate the frequency of certain crimes, due to the tendency to understate particular offence that is generally associated with people of status and wealth. The consideration of the alternation of justice, social status causes is vital because of the distortions that can be created in the calculation of statistics. As determined, the violence of colonialism is ongoing and Aboriginal and Black Canadians are prominent in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, those statistics that specify the prominence of minorities in the criminal system, particularly Aboriginal and Black Canadians, intensify the implications of preconception toward minority races especially in their connections to violence. Statistics that present information such as, although they make up 2% of the population, blacks represent 6% of those federally incarcerated and 7% of those serving time in the community (Linden, 145). In 2008-2009, Aboriginal Canadians comprised 3% of the population, Aboriginal offenders accounted for 27% of all sentenced admission to provincial custody and 18% of admissions to federal prisons (Linden, 147). Although these statistics varies within provinces in the past 10 years, the representation of Aboriginal women in the prison system has increased nearly 90% (Linden, 151). Statistical data emphasizes minorities' prevalence in the justice system, irrespective of the initial purpose, are often used as rationalization for prejudice behaviour and negative connotations toward the specified race group.

Likewise, incarceration resulting from a failure to pay fines was twice as common for Aboriginals as for Non-Aboriginals. This tendency to generate negative connotations is especially problematic in the criminal justice system because of statistical data's inclination toward systemic