SUBJECT: CRIMINAL ACTS
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to the punishment of crimes.
ISSUE: There is not enough regulation for the punishment of crimes.
Background:
The punishment of crime falls under the proponents of deterrence. Deterrence says that there are two forms of deterrence: general and specific. Deterrence is used to prevent people from doing crime. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop society as a whole from committing crimes. This form is used as an example to, “scare” society to prevent crimes. On the other hand specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from recommitting in the future. This form of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson. In Canada crimes are categorized in the Criminal Code. There are three types of offenses: Summary, indictable, or hybrid offenses. Summary offenses are the least serious mind of crimes, often referred to as, “petty crimes.”. These offenses usually carry a maximum punishment of six months in jail or a $5000 fine. Indictable offenses on the other hand, are the most serious offenses under the Criminal Code. Penalties could be as high as life in a correctional center. Lastly, Hybrid offenses are when the counsel must choose to treat a specific offense as summary or indictable. How the counsel chooses is based on how serious the crime is.
Considerations:
There are two type of crime that this brief will closely examine, street crime or suite crime. Street crime are offenses that are committed in a public place. The difference between street crime and suite crime id that street crime is often violence that occurs in a public area whereas white-collar crime is non-violent crime conducted by government or private industries for the purposes of financial gain. It is widely known that the poor are more likely than the wealthy to commit street crime, it is also true that the wealthy are much more likely than the poor to commit white collar crime, which an be much more harmful than street crime.
It is a fact that younger people do more crime than those that are older. These younger people are developing a sense of identity and through this they begin to deviate and question societal norms. They are given restrictions from the law, their school and their parents which evidently creates a sense of curiosity amongst them. Through the social learning theory, Crime is a learned behavior and it must be observed in order to learn and do it. These younger people are influenced by a culture such as music or movies that promote crime. Through these cultures, they create in these younger people, definitions whereby they are then able to grasp these deviant behaviors. They then associate with peer groups who appeal to their preconceived notions about the criminal activity. They can either feel positive, negative or neutral on these subject matters. Crimes such as theft, violence and drugs are most common with this age group. They feel that since it is promoted or glamorized in culture that it is okay that they imitate these behaviors. These younger people are very impressionable, and it is a fact that the brain doesn’t fully develop until the age of around 25.
Older individuals, however, have been tied down to many commitments such as a job or their family therefore, they commit less crime. They have been through the process of maturational reform. But some of them do still partake in crime. Their crimes are usually white-collar crimes. These types of crimes are inaccessible to the younger demographic.
Options:
Option 1: Change the legal age to 25
A possible solution we suggest is that perhaps we as a society look at what is currently referred to as the, “legal age.” Since science says that the brain doesn’t fully develop until that age, it is only right that we perhaps consider to question the legal age. Perhaps it is necessary to keep certain parts of the legal age of 19 such as alcohol, cigarettes and driving. But we do question these young people’s ability to make sound legal judgements especially when making legal decisions. Are young people functioning at a capacity wherein they fully understand the ramifications of their decisions? This is a very feasible option and it would be very easy to implement. The extra time will give young adults time to mature. This option is considerate of the equity in which people ascertain because each individual will be at a full capacity when they are permitted to make legal decisions.
Option 2: Minimum punishment and weighted punishments
In academia, they educate that there is a great inequity in the legal system. This inequity is evident in the fact that those who are poor suffer more than those that are wealthy from penalty, sanctions or prison. We believe society should look at punishing based on a percentage scale so that we can be a society that is fair and equitable. Let’s say theft under 2000.00$ is punishable under the current legislation for 6 months of prison or a penalty of $2500.00. From the lens of the proposed scale we can then say that those are the minimum punishments but also we can look at the average individual’s income and then scale the punishment in such a way that it is the same percentage of penalty that the poor person has to pay as the wealthy person therefore, these people who commit crime are affected in the same way. This method is what originates from deterrence theory, if we as a society punish people based on an income percentage scale, we would definitely see less crime. Moreover, we feel the legal system condemns these people and treats them unfairly by giving them a criminal record for life. This is an aspect which should be looked at. It is not fair that they have to suffer the implications of their misjudgments for their entire life. People change throughout their life- time and this legislation is literally unreasonable. Perhaps the government should consider changing it to something like 20 years but life for serious crimes. This is the least feasible option because it would require a lot of bureaucratic changes to the government system. Minimums would be ticketed however, weighted punishments would need to be calculated in government offices. This is also the most sustainable as it would prevent people from committing crime. This is the option that is most considerate of equality because each individual will suffer in equal proportions to others who have committed the same crime.
Option 3: Status quo
This option is the most feasible. It is true that we live in a society that is the safest it has ever been. Civilization has come a long way from the hunter gatherer days it once was. We need to keep creating safer societies for the future generations who will one day, make decisions on our behalf. Although feasible, this option is the least considerate of equality. This is because the wealthy will continue to commit and they can surely afford the fines the government burdens them with. As mentioned white collar crime could and has the potential to be more damaging than street crime. We need to promote a community that deters crime. By maintaining the status quo, we are failing in that endeavor.
Recommendation:
Mixture of option one and two is recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment