First photo of captured fugitive David Sweat
(more…)
Forensic Files 10×23 Prints Among Theives
(more…)
Is Now the Time for Offenders to Repay Their Social Debts?
Not many issues prompt as much discussion as those that surround judicial procedure and criminal rehabilitation, especially in a society that has a serious problem with overcrowded correctional facilities and restrictions in public expenditure. These are social issues with burden the US at this present time, and are tightly interwoven through the vast sums of public money that it currently takes to maintain the crowded and bustling correctional facilities that are currently in operation throughout the country.
Crime has become something of a social epidemic in recent times, with the last 2 decades seeing the prison population rise by over 1 million inmates. This has unfortunately been the catalyst to the inflated levels of public money that have been invested into building and maintaining correctional facilities, while also accounting for rising amount of tax payer revenue to feed and house the criminal fraternity. With both crime and public spending coming under intense public focus, now is the time to tackle the theories of rehabilitation and how convicted felons should pay their debts to society.
A Case in Point
DC Central operates a Kitchen’s Culinary Job Training program, which is geared specifically towards homeless and previously incarcerated individuals. This is the kind of initiative which has developed in the wake of increased rates of conviction and criminal behavior, and is primarily conceived to give those with a criminal past an opportunity to grow and refrain from re-offending. As this and many similar schemes have a keen basis in the interests of society, they also allow their employees to repay their debts to the society that they once disparaged.
The Issues with Crime and Punishment Part 2
If we assess the problems with administrating justice and sentencing within a democratic context, then these issues pale into insignificance when compared to those which concern punishment rehabilitation. The reason for this is that any prison sentence or consequence that is passed down within a democratic rule must be dual purpose, and need to provide a delicate balance between legitimate punishment and rehabilitating the perpetrator.
It is this balance which epitomizes a slight weakness within the armory of democracy, as it attempts to serve as many citizens as possible and in a vast number of individual ways. This aspiration is integral to the ideal of democracy, but it can occasionally create a situation where an individual goal or target can fall short of expectations. In terms of rehabilitation, this means that where a prison environment Is too lenient, a criminal is neither encouraged to repent or reform for their misdemeanors.
Can Punishment and Rehabilitation be Carried out Simultaneously?
This raises an interesting point with regards to the separate entities of punishment and rehabilitation, and whether they can be carried out simultaneously. Although they are individual concepts in their own right, they are closely linked in terms of their relationship and relevance to a perpetrator of crime, and any punishment administered must be harsh enough to provoke thought, remorse and ultimately a desire to reform. Where this punishment fails to be efficient,
The Issues with Crime and Punishment Part 1
Of all the aspects of a democracy that create debate and consternation, the approach to justice and criminal rehabilitation is one of the more significant. This is chiefly because it has a definitive impact on the well being and security of society, in addition to accounting for a large sum of tax revenue and government expenditure, and also challenges the important issues of morality amongst a nation’s citizens. This not only applies to the morality of the perpetrators of crime, but also the methodology used in administering justice.
There are many different approaches to crime and punishment across the globe, from those based upon democratic principles to others that are primitive and often reflective of a totalitarian rule. The US largely adheres to the former, although some states within the countries boundaries do still employ capital punishment as a consequence of specific types of crime. While the democratic model of justice is one that reflects the best balance of morality and rehabilitation, there are issues with originate from it’s core values.
Admitting Guilt and Reduced Sentencing
As aspect of this is reduced sentencing in exchange for a guilty plea, which remains a feature of existing law regardless of the severity of a crime or its moral implications. This is a longstanding pivot upon which justice veers, and allows perpetrators of crime to escape from the maximum punishment allowed by law through a simple and public admission of their guilt. While this is seen as a partial act of acceptance and also saves crucial tax payers money designated for a trial, the question remains as to whether it has become a largely cynical deed rather than a humanitarian one.
The Safety of Society from Sex Offenders
Any story that concerns he sexual abuse of a child is tragic in its composition, regardless of the perpetrator or their number of youthful victims. However, there are cases which push the limits of human comprehension, especially those where the perpetrator was in a position of trust or respectability. This issue epitomises the importance of regulating these criminals when they are active within society, as they are naturally drawn to jobs or occupations where they are able to interact with children and minors.
With this in mind, it is something of a surprise that many former priests accused of child abuse are able to live unmonitored across the states of the US, despite the fact that many have admitted to their crimes at various junctures in time. The reason for this is that their crimes have either remained unproven in law or were conducted so long ago that the statute of limitations had expired long before the victims cam forward and shared their stories. Subsequently, these offenders are allowed to live without restrictions or supervision, regardless of the potential dangers to society.
Serving the Interests of Society
Those who are seeking justice and their legal representatives are looking to see information on these priests and their whereabouts enter the public domain, in the interests of public safety and well being. However, the church are set to fight this campaign, looking to impose limits and sanctions on the release of related files or data on those accused of perpetrating abuse. This debate is set to rage, with neither party keen to afford any ground to the other, as private investigators work alongside prosecutors to locate the exact whereabouts or circumstances of the 233 accused.
Crime and Rehabilitation
The concepts of crime and punishment have been well versed and discussed for generations. In civilized society, the purpose of implementing penal sentences for criminal acts is to rehabilitate the offender, educating them through various programs that aim to modify their behavioral trends. This is opposed to the primal and less evolved attitudes towards prison, which focus solely on punishing the perpetrators of crime and attempting to deter them through the severity of consequence.
It is widely accepted that the former is the most conducive towards reducing crime over a period of time, as well as creating the best environment to change attitudes rather than hardening a prevalent criminal ethos. However, this methodology of attempting to correct behavior rather than punish it is vulnerable to several criticisms, most notably that it is open to abuse from career criminals who observe captivity as an occupational hazard and one that can be endured for financial reward.
Serving Time and Rehabilitation
Opposed to this, there is also criticism from those who deem aspects of criminal law to restrictive in a democratic environment. This observation applies to legislation that continues to restricts the movements and activity of individuals after they have been released from their sentence, and therefore regulates behaviour for far longer than their original punishment. While this may be necessary for specific and compulsive natures of crime, it is not entirely appropriate or ethical for others.
Can Stricter Laws Combat Declining Moral Standards?
With instances of fraud and violent crime remaining unacceptably high through 2009 and early 2010, there is an ever intensive focus on US laws and legislation to help resolve criminal behavioural trends. However, there is another factor which influences criminal acts and conduct, one which remains less defined and yet potentially more pertinent, and this is the concept of personal morality. Completely individual to each person, these nurtured principles govern an independent philosophy of living, and help determine which acts a conscience deems acceptable and righteous. With this in mind, it is fair to question the validity of strict and detailed law when confronted with an individual’s own standards of morality.
Acknowledging Morality as a Factor in Criminal Behaviour
If we consider their core definitions, laws and morals are essentially as one. Both are sets of principles that govern what actions are deemed to be acceptable and righteous, and act as a code by which we conduct our lives and daily affairs. However, whereas laws are set by government legislation to serve society as a single entity, morals are unique to each separate member of that society. They are conditional, influenced by nature, upbringing and most crucially the surrounding environment and circumstance that an individual finds themselves in at any given time. Morals are the most malleable to a subjects situation, and are therefore are often the primary principles by which conduct is orientated. This means that in order for laws to effectively govern a society, they must serve two specific purposes: firstly, to recognise the role of morality in certain criminal offences, and secondly to ensure that such actions are met with swift and consistent consequences.