CRIME PREVENTION

docx

School

University of Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1101

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

6

Uploaded by SargentEagleMaster385

Report
STUDENT'S NAME: JOHN MGANDI MBOVU REG NUMBER: BCSM 2019/48821 UNIT: CRIME PREVENTION UNIT CODE: BJS 2105
Instructions ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 1. "Punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain to a wrongdoer." Describe the three theories of punishment that explain this statement with relevant examples. (15 marks) Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed or actual offender for an offense, such as a moral or legal transgression. Since punishment involves inflicting pain or deprivation similar to that which the perpetrator of a crime inflicts on his victim, it has generally been agreed that punishment requires moral and legal, and political justification. While philosophers almost all agree that punishment is at least sometimes justifiable, they offer various accounts of how it is to be justified as well as what the infliction of punishment is designed to protect – rights, personal autonomy, and private property, a political constitution, or the democratic process, for instance. i. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the moral theory that holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the balance of good over evil produced by that action. Philosophers have argued over exactly how the resulting good and evil may be identified and to whom the most significant good should belong. Jeremy Bentham identified well with pleasure and evil with pain and held that the greatest pleasure should belong to the most significant number of people. Perhaps the most notable utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, identified happiness and evil unhappiness and held that the greatest happiness should belong to the most significant number. When attempting to determine whether a punishment is justifiable, utilitarians will attempt to anticipate the likely consequences of carrying out the punishment. If punishing an
offender would most likely produce the most outstanding balance of happiness over unhappiness than the other available options (not taking any action or publicly denouncing the offender, the punishment is justified. If another available option would produce a more outstanding balance of happiness over unhappiness, then that option should be chosen, and punishment is unjustified. ii. Retribution The "let the punishment fit the crime" ideal captures the essence of retribution. Proponents advocate just deserts, which defines justice in terms of fairness and proportionality. Retributivists aim to dispense punishment according to an offender's moral blameworthiness (as measured by the severity of crimes of which the offender was convicted). Ideally, the harshness of punishments should be proportionate to the seriousness of crimes. In reality, it is challenging to match punishments and crimes since there is no way to objectively calibrate the moral depravity of particular crimes and the painfulness of specific punishments. Retribution is a backward‐looking theory of punishment. It looks to the past to determine what to do in the present. iii. Compromise theories Many theorists have attempted to take utilitarianism and retributivism features and combine them into a theory that retains both strengths while overcoming their weaknesses. The impetus for attempting to develop this sort of theory is clear: the idea that punishment should promote good consequences, such as reducing crime, indeed seems attractive. However, the idea that it would be justified to punish an innocent in any circumstance where such punishment would likely promote the most significant balance of happiness over unhappiness indeed seems wrong. Likewise, the idea that justice and the desert of the offender should play a central role in a justification of punishment is attractive, while being committed to punishing an offender even
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
when nobody's welfare would be promoted as a result seems to be problematic. So, each type of theory seems to have positive and negative aspects. 2. Examine using relevant examples of the ways crime can be prevented through social development. (15 marks) Social development refers to activities intended to increase positive (reduce undesired) motivations, attitudes, or behavior in individuals by influencing their experiences in family life, education, employment, housing, or recreation. There are many reasons for focusing on crime prevention through social development: i. Reduction of crime diminishes the public's fear of crime and the number of crime victims ii. While the police, courts their scope for further methods is limited; and corrections attempt crime reduction, using to control crime, they are traditional iii. While opportunity reduction can displace crime and reduce it in the short term, it may not reduce crime in the long term iv. Many factors linked systematically to crime by longitudinal studies can be influenced by social development. The following methods, among others, can reduce crime and violence; i. Reducing drugs and alcohol There are no clear conclusions on the importance of alcohol in explaining delinquency or crime since it is associated with many of the same problems that precipitate delinquency. The developmental explanation of crime finds a correlation between heavy drinking at age 18 and drinking and driving, and crime at ages 18-21 and 21-25. However, alcohol made no independent contribution to crime at these ages because it was positively correlated with other "anti-social
tendencies," including heavy gambling and smoking, aggression, prohibited drug use, and involvement with anti-social groups. However, regulations on alcohol and drugs and rehabilitation of addicts can limit crime. ii. Promoting healthy, nonviolent children Various standards are based on scientific consensus and applying those standards to youth violence prevention literature to identify with general confidence strategies and promising programs or that do not work to prevent youth violence. This information can be used by schools, communities, juvenile justice agencies, program funders, and others interested in youth violence prevention to aid their programming decisions. With this information in hand, it may be possible to fulfill the prediction that better use of existing prevention resources can substantially reduce youth violence. iii. Jobs When it comes to crimes with economic motives—such as theft—a new study suggests that providing job training, money (or supplies) to get started in legitimate work, and employment opportunities could help curb repeat offenses. iv. Clean environments Open bags of trash and garbage scattered on the sidewalk make people suspicious. However, it is not an instinct that keeps people from walking down that road. Several years ago, a whole theory was developed, which reinforced the idea that having clean, ordered streets and well-lit, maintained public spaces could discourage criminals and gangs. Urban neighborhoods of Latin America and the Caribbean are home to 70% of the region's poor. There, where the poorest people live, public spaces often lack the necessary infrastructure, a water supply, and garbage collection services.
References Hoskins, Z. (2020). Hybrid Theories of Punishment. The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy and Science of Punishment , 37-48. Olajide, S., & Lizam, M. (2017). The Desirability of Crime Prevention Through Social Development (CPSD) in Residential Neighbourhood Crime Prevention. Available at SSRN 2921041 . Vagi, K. J., Stevens, M. R., Simon, T. R., Basile, K. C., Carter, S. P., & Carter, S. L. (2018). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) characteristics associated with violence and safety in middle schools. Journal of school health , 88 (4), 296-305. Wringe, B. (2017). Rethinking expressive theories of punishment: why denunciation is a better bet than communication or pure expression. Philosophical Studies , 174 (3), 681-708.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help