Criminal Justice Essay I Wrote

Introduction:

Criminal Justice, as a system for enforcing and sentencing according to law and statute, has long been dominated by various philosophies that fall into and out of favor based on the criminal climate. These philosophies provide a guiding framework to the operations of the criminal justice system and help dictate the particular sentences imposed. They establish particular models of punishment and are aimed are particular views and definitions of the criminal justice system. They also have particular strengths and weaknesses as the criminal justice system has long modeled. As a result of all this each philosophy will be considered in detail within this paper.

Defined:

To examine and discuss each of the primary philosophies guiding the criminal justice system, one must begin with a definition of each. For the purposes of this paper concern will focus on the four primary philosophies of criminal justice. They are as follows: Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, and Retribution. Deterrence is defined as “A sentencing philosophy seeking to prevent criminal acts by making an example of persons convicted of crimes”[1]. The key thing to this particular philosophy is the idea of the criminal as an example preventing future crime. Incapacitation, meanwhile, is a completely different sentencing philosophy that views sentencing as serving to remove criminals from civilized society. Thus it pictures such things as incarceration and capital punishment as helping to eliminate the presence of criminals in society.

Retribution is the third key philosophy guiding the criminal justice system and envisions punishment being made proportional to the crime committed. That is to say it views as necessary the balance of punishment to criminal act. The final and fourth criminal philosophy of significance is rehabilitation, which differs significantly from the preceding three philosophies. Rehabilitation views sentencing and criminal justice as means to correct, cure, or otherwise fix the criminal. Thus it would view treatments and therapy as means of treating criminal conduct. With this in mind it is now time to examine the real world application of these philosophies to the criminal justice model.

In Practice:

With the definitions of the various philosophies in mind, particularly the differences inherent in each it should be apparent that the real-world application of each would also vary. To begin with deterrence would act to punish an individual, say a bank robber, through punishment intended to prevent future criminal conduct (an example of specific or general deterrence depending on the larger purpose of the act). In this instance such punishment as imprisonment is intended to deter repeat behavior. Incapacitation with its desire to remove the criminal from civilization at large would in the instance of the previously mentioned bank robber view imprisonment as removing a troubled element from society. Instead of attempting to deter future misconduct, incapacitation in this instance would view punishment simply as cleansing society of criminal presence.

Retribution, viewing criminal punishment and sentencing as a proportional redress of criminal behavior, would advocate criminal punishment for the bank robber proportional to the evil of the crime. In this particular case the bank robber’s potential prison sentence would be tailored to a degree considered fitting for the crime committed (and fines might also be attached). The final philosophy mentioned earlier, rehabilitation, meanwhile might view alternatives existing to the various punishments suggested by the other philosophies. In this scenario, instead of sentencing the bank robber to prison (where he might pick up additional criminal skills) rehabilitation might attempt to find creative alternatives such as community service and therapy.

The real world application of these various philosophies by the elements of the criminal justice system (the police, courts, and corrections systems) is as varied as the definition of each philosophy. As the above examples show, the application of sentencing and punishment by the various wings of the criminal justice apparatus in large depends on the objective of each philosophy. That is to say the punishment and aims of the courts, police, and corrections differs based on the end objective of the respective philosophy they hold-whether it be punishment or rehabilitation. With that said the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the four key philosophies will now be examined.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The real world application of the various criminal sentencing philosophies has, like any real world application of any idea, revealed both strengths and weaknesses for each. To begin with the Deterrence philosophy has, in the general deterrence model, proven somewhat effective in deterring the commission of acts by potential criminals through the punishment of another criminal. However, as the textbook indicated, studies of the general deterrence model have shown both promise and inconclusiveness (with some studies indicating that the certainty of sentencing deters more than the severity). Meanwhile the textbook also indicated that the specific deterrence model (based on deterring the actual convicted criminal) does not effectively deter future criminal acts. Thus its strength lies in the ability to potentially deter future criminals but its weakness in the inconclusive nature of its success.

The sentencing philosophy of incapacitation meanwhile has different strengths and weaknesses. This philosophy, which views the removal of criminals from society as the purpose of the Criminal Justice system, is strong in the area of removing criminals from the ability to commit further crime. However it is weak in that it cannot completely remove criminals from society (since the only permanent removal would involve execution-not appropriate in all crimes) and in that it is economically unsound (due to the number of prison facilities it would advocate for purposes of incarceration).

Retribution or the sentencing philosophy of proportional punishment to crime meanwhile has its own strengths and weaknesses. Among its strengths retribution nominally designs punishments to fit the crime and address that particular criminal behavior. However it possesses a number of weaknesses. In particular retribution cannot be effectively designed to address all criminal behavior in a fashion that is necessarily fair and proportional to the criminal conduct in question. Additionally retribution leaves open the question of what punishment is proportional to what crime.

Finally there is the sentencing philosophy of rehabilitation. This criminal justice philosophy, which envisions treating the criminal for whatever condition is assumed to have caused the criminal behavior, is strong in that it addresses criminal behavior in a positive manner. It is also strong in that it seeks to turn criminals into productive citizens once more. Its weakness lies in the fact that it has a questionable efficacy level.

Conclusion:

Criminal justice is guided by various philosophies of punishment and sentencing. They have a variety of end objectives and purposes for punishment and each is uniquely defined and exercised. These sentencing philosophies each have their own strengths and weaknesses and, when carried into effect, create a unique criminal justice model. They are a valuable study and a useful tool for understanding the criminal justice apparatus.

Source:

Inciardi, James. Criminal Justice. 9th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2010. 367-437, 580. Print.

---

[1] Inciardi Pg. 580

Refuting the Divine

Introduction

Divine Command Ethics is a philosophical system of ethics that rests on the idea that God or the gods determine what is right or wrong. It is also a philosophical view that defines an action as good or bad on the basis of whether or not God or the gods command it. It is, in short, a philosophical concept deriving its basis and authority from religion and religious text. The question I raise is this: “Does it work?”

Conflict between the Gods?

You might initially answer with a “yes”, particularly if you are a deeply religious individual. However, what is the basis for that “yes” answer? At this point, you might respond with the name of some religious text such as the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran. And at this point, my first point of refutation can be made. This first point refutes the concept of Divine Command Ethics on the basis of the great diversity of religions and gods out there (as partially demonstrated by the texts mentioned earlier). It makes this refutation because that very diversity means that a state of conflict exists within the framework of the ethical system wherein one god might command an action (making it good) that another might condemn. If such a thing occurred how could an effective moral or ethical system operate?

How do you know it is God?

For some, the answer “yes” will still be foremost in their minds and thus I must present my second point of refutation. This point is as follows: If God is the origin for that which is good, how do you know that it is God with whom you commune or God who gave the command? That is to say, how do you know that the text you read is in fact the word of God, and how do you know that the commands of God are in fact his commands? If no answers to these questions are possible (as is the case for some religions) or no evidence exists to support the answers to these questions then the ethical system runs into a quandary. And a quandary in the ethical system would be far from good.

Some will of course continue to argue the matter purely on the basis that the written word was dictated to divinely anointed prophets who couldn’t have altered the given word or been deceived in any fashion. However, this argument is flawed purely on the basis that the prophets were human and thus like all humans, prone to error. Besides, even had the prophets been honest, how do you know that the subsequent copiers of the good word were as honest? How do you know that they held to the original scripture?

How do you know God is moral?

The final point I raise to refute Divine Command Ethics is for those last few individuals who continue to answer “yes” in the face of my previous counterarguments. For them, this final point of refutation or negation might be construed as offensive. I do not, however, intend to cause offense; instead I intend to merely offer a final argument hoping to persuade those last few holding out. This final point is as follows: How do you know God or the gods are moral? At this point, it might be argued that because the divine are supreme beings they must of course be moral beings. But this would be flawed reasoning and that is because the idea of being supreme doesn’t necessitate the idea of perfection or morality so much as it articulates the idea of power.

Of course others might raise the objection that the Gods are moral, not on the basis necessarily of being supreme beings but on the basis of being creators and thus defining morality. This objection is also flawed because creating something doesn’t necessitate defining its morality. At this point, I will raise an interesting example to prove my point, and that example is parenthood. I raise parenthood as my example because parents create an organism capable of developing a moral system much like the gods or God create beings capable of possessing moral systems. Those parents (creators like the gods) don’t necessarily or even successfully define moral systems in all instances, just as the gods don’t.

Conclusion

I close this paper with a synopsis of my arguments against the concept of Divine Command Ethics. I began by arguing against Divine Command Ethics with an argument centered on diversity and conflict between the gods. I then followed that argument with one centered upon the idea of how you know that the commands you receive originated with God or the gods. Finally I closed with the most controversial of my points-that of whether God or the gods are moral or not. I hope my arguments proved persuasive and my points were well made, I also hope my paper proved an enjoyable read.

NOTE: This is not intended as an attack on any religion whatsoever!

Responding to “The Long Road to Zero”

So here is a recent essay written for a political science course:

I write this short critique in response to an article entitled “The Long Road to Zero”. This article focuses on how the United States and the global community can reduce the need and desire for nuclear weapons and how the global community could meet energy needs in an environmentally sound fashion. It is a very well written piece, which raises a number of valid and worthy points - and with which I agree. However, I do believe that it fails in two key respects. After highlighting them, I will provide my own perspective on the issue of nuclear proliferation.

When I say that I think this article “failed”, by no means am I rejecting the largely valid reasoning behind it. Indeed, I use the term to more or less highlight the areas of the article which I found to be rather weak or erroneous. For example, I readily agree with the series of principles that Dr. Ferguson raises when discussing the need “to develop principles of responsible behavior”[1] for those possessing nuclear materials. However, I believe that he has erred in failing to account for the human factor. That is to say, I believe he raises perfectly valid points when it comes to the state factor, but I feel that he doesn’t adequately account for the foundation of the state - its people.

When I say that Dr. Ferguson errs in considering the foundation of the state (the people that constitute the nation), I mean that he doesn’t account for the various aspects of the society comprising that nation. He fails to account for the factors within that society that could have particular effects on the subject matter at hand (nuclear disarmament) and for the numerous non-state actors (only briefly mentioned) that hold sway in the international system. This is certainly a strong article, but I believe he needs to account for the above-mentioned weaknesses.

In reading his article, I must also mention another weakness that I discerned. This second issue I raise revolves around the following statement: “Were the United States to provide energy assistance to countries across the world, it would bolster U.S. economic competitiveness and help in the global fight against climate change.”[2] My issue with this statement comes from the fact that he doesn’t provide specific economic details as to how the economic competitiveness will improve or how the energy assistance could be implemented to create this increased competitiveness. I agree with the statement in general, but I feel he needs to provide a detailed explanation as to how it could be implemented and exactly how economic competitiveness would be improved.

Other than those rather minor critiques, I agree with Dr. Ferguson on all the major points of his piece. The principles and the policies that he highlights as being important to addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation are more than excellent. They provide an effective examination of the difficulties in foreign policy regarding nuclear proliferation and suggest rather practical solutions. The fact that he follows his rather sound principles with rather well thought out examples is also another plus in his favor. It adds to the authority that the author possesses on the subject matter.

Now that I have explained my critiques and overall opinion of Dr. Charles Ferguson’s piece, I am compelled to give my own opinion on the question of nuclear proliferation. I would like to begin by stating that I feel like nuclear proliferation in and of itself is not a fundamental problem. The biggest problem facing the spread of nuclear technology and nuclear material is the potential for the spread of and further development of nuclear weaponry. At this point, most people would be in agreement with me, but they might disagree with my reason for finding the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a significant problem.

I find the spread of nuclear weaponry to be a problem not because of the simple spread of highly dangerous weapons, but because it is accomplished in such a fashion as to create a security dilemma. That is to say, I don’t find the spread of nuclear armaments to be a problem in and of itself; instead I find it to be a problem because it unevenly distributes said weapons throughout the global system. In my opinion, this is the most significant issue involving nuclear arms. As a result I suggest two potential solutions.

The first solution I would suggest is to find a way to completely remove nuclear arms from the global, regional, and national levels. Find a way to make them disappear. This could be accomplished any number of ways and I will leave the particular details to policy makers. However, this is also the most difficult solution since it requires some level of trust development amongst the nations of the world (a very difficult thing to accomplish on most any subject matter). Since this is the case, I believe solution two is the better option.

Solution two envisions a completely different approach to handling the nuclear weapon proliferation issue. Indeed, with this solution I propose the equal distribution of nuclear arms in the international system with the accompanying establishment of some oversight agency. That is to say, I suggest you equally distribute nuclear arms and technology throughout the international system to all nations willing to accept global oversight of said arms. In this way, the equal standing of all nations in relation to nuclear weaponry negates the security dilemma. As a result, the global system should be infinitely safer. Can you say MAD on a much larger scale?

---

[1] Ferguson, Charles "The Long Road to Zero:Overcoming the Obstacles to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94 Web. 7 Feb 2010 . PG: 88

[2] Ferguson PG: 93

Ferguson, Charles. "The Long Road to Zero: Overcoming the Obstacles

to a Nuclear-Free World." Foreign Affairs89.1 (2010): 86-94. Web. 7 Feb 2010. .

Democracy Revisited

It has come to my attention of late that the definition of democracy employed in modern times is a flawed one. When I say the “definition of democracy” I am not literally attacking the dictionary definition, instead I am attacking the empty rhetoric behind it. That empty rhetoric is as follows: “Government by the people, of the people, for the people”. I attack this “definition”, this “rhetoric” as empty and as flawed because it has not adequately fulfilled what the purpose of the term envisioned.

I say this because if one looks at the great mass of the world’s governments that label themselves as “democratic” you will realize that something is amiss. But what is it that is amiss? Are they not for the most part countries that function on the Republican democratic principle? And if they are republican democracies what is the problem at hand? To most people the only thing that is amiss is the participatory rates of these democratic nations. However I believe that there is an additional issue that has been overlooked and which I attribute to the faulty definition and rhetoric of democracy.

That additional issue, which I believe to be the reason for the empty rhetoric concerning the “definition of democracy”, revolves around the dominance of the government by an Elite class. I take issue with this because how can the definition of democracy exist, as is, when “government by the people” simply entails government by the elite? In many, if not all, of the countries that identify themselves as democratic-social and economic elites dominant the government. They fill the senior leadership positions and hold most, if not all, of the legislative positions. It must also be noted that these elites pick and handle all the key issues and make decisions that largely benefit their fellow elites (thus largely stripping the meaning from “by the people, for the people”). I could continue along this vein of thought for a great length of time, but for the sake of brevity shall get to my point quickly.

As the above given example(s) shows the current definition of democracy is flawed on the basis of how it is practiced. In reality it completely fails to hold up to the most basic “definition” to which it is held and idealized. Thus I propose that an alternative defining “rhetoric” be employed to describe democracy in the hopes that it will someday steer governments back onto the correct course. That is to say I propose redefining the “rhetoric” behind democracy in the hopes that it will lead to new realizations, which might make the practice of democracy more democratic. My proposal is that instead of defining democracy on the basis of “government by the people, of the people, for the people” we redefine it on the basis of the “love by the people, for the people, of the people”.

Maybe with this definition democracy can truly be what it was intended to be. Maybe with this definition the necessary changes can be made to empower the people to work for what is best for the people. In fact, maybe democracy will truly be democratic.

PS: I know it might seem a little weaker than my previous postings but alas that is what fatigue will do! Planning on posting an article I wrote up for a Congress class in the next few days.

Next Posting

Tomorrow I will be writing a post on what Democracy should be as compared to what it is now so be on the look out! In the meantime I invite you to consider the following news article concerning recent events in the Republic of Niger. Here is the link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8523196.stm

I write today about a singular method by which Congress might be improved. This method envisions term limits, which our founding fathers omitted, on all members of Congress. Our founding fathers omitted term limits largely to allow the electorate to elect whomever they please and to allow congressional members to be elected as many times as their performance warranted. They also omitted term limits because they desired to retain experience within the legislative body.

However, despite their well-founded reasoning, our forefathers were erroneous in not enacting some form of term limits. I say this because the current legislative assembly in the United States is one in which incumbents dominant and members stay in Congress for unduly long periods of time. Also the incumbency advantage has in effect limited the scope of Congressional competition.

Because I respect the reasoning of our forefathers, yet find term limits a necessity, it is my proposal that Consecutive Term Limits (not total term limits) be imposed on members of Congress. That is to say, members of Congress may only be elected to serve but so many consecutive terms before they must take time off (although once the stated period of time has worn off they are welcome to run again). In this way the experience, choices, and performance desired by our forefathers might largely be met-and at the same time the Congressional establishment might be made a more democratic institution.

I now ask you to consider this point-what is your opinion of the idea of consecutive term limits?

Conservatism?

After reading a recent article wherein Glenn Beck explains "Why Progressive States Fail" I thought it necessary to write on the subject matter at hand. That subject matter of course concerns Progressivism vs. Conservatism. However, unlike Mr. Beck I will not be attacking the idea of either progressive or conservative states-but rather shall be attacking the definition of conservatism. In this way I genuinely believe I will be able to effectively refute the concept that stands at the foundation of Mr. Beck’s article.

On that basis I would like to introduce the definition of conservatism most applicable to political matters. That definition is as follows: "a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change"-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Conservatism. I elect this definition because though it sounds good, it is fundamentally flawed.

At this point you might wonder how it could possibly be flawed and I am ready with an answer. This definition of conservatism is flawed in its use of the term “best” when discussing the preservation of the established order. It is flawed in employing this term primarily because it is impossible to effectively define the best components of said established order. You might ask why this is and I would answer with this. Society is an ever-changing “order” that is constantly adjusting to an ever-evolving environment. Thus there are no components, which are static enough to actually be the best of a static or near-static political concept.

I am willing to concede that I might be wrong in my assertions, but I can challenge this definition also at the point referencing “opposing radical change”. I can do this on the same basis that I can oppose the use of the term “best”. After all in an ever-evolving society, what constitutes “radical change” versus say “reasonable change”?