Midterm Exam

docx

School

University of Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2018

Subject

Sociology

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by chestamike0

Midterm Exam Question 1: The fact that blacks are imprisoned at 5.5 times the rate of whites is a complicated issue influenced by a variety of variables, including systematic racism within the criminal justice system. While not every member inside the system is knowingly racist, the cumulative impact of policies and practices has disproportionately impacted black populations. Several policies have contributed to this disparity. To begin, the 1970s drug war resulted in heavier sentences for drug offences, which disproportionately impacted minority communities due to higher rates of poverty and restricted access to effective legal representation. Mandatory minimum sentencing regulations and the abolition of parole also played a role in perpetuating sentencing inequalities. Furthermore, racially biased policing practices, such as racial profiling, have resulted in higher black arrest and conviction rates (Kelly, 2019). Furthermore, judges, prosecutors, and jurors' unconscious prejudices and preconceptions can impact judgments within the criminal justice system, resulting in unequal outcomes. To address this issue, policy changes such as reforming sentencing laws, investing in alternatives to incarceration, increasing access to quality legal representation, addressing racial biases within the justice system, and focusing on community- based interventions that address the root causes of crime must be implemented. The genesis of crime control began in 1968, under the presidency of Richard Nixon, because this period in history was defined by a perfect storm of factors that contributed to the implementation of tough criminal justice laws. Nixon's election came after a time of social instability and growing crime rates, which fueled public concern and desire for stricter measures to keep law and order. Furthermore, the increasing civil rights movement, as well as the dread of urban crime, exacerbated racial fears, leading to policies that disproportionately targeted minority populations. In addition, the political environment favored a conservative approach to law enforcement, with Nixon's "law and order" rhetoric resonating with voters and consolidating support for punitive crime control programs. According to William R. Kelly (2019), the drop in crime over the last two decades cannot be traced primarily to punitive, ‘get-tough' criminal justice measures. While these measures may have had an impact, Kelly contends that there are a number of other forces at work. Changes in demographics, increasing economic growth and opportunity, advancements in policing techniques and technology, a decrease in drug usage, and advancements in crime prevention and intervention programs are examples of these. Instead of depending simply on punitive measures, Kelly emphasizes the need for a more holistic and evidence-based strategy to crime reduction. One example of how severe criminal justice systems have softened in recent years, according to Kelly (2019) is the growing emphasis on diversion programs for nonviolent offenders. These programs seek to give alternatives to incarceration by providing rehabilitation, counselling, and community service in lieu of jail term. The growing use of drug courts, which attempt to provide treatment and assistance to persons battling with substance misuse rather than punishing them through incarceration, is one example of this. This tendency is expected to continue since there is a growing realization that punitive methods to criminal justice are ineffective at reducing crime rates and frequently create recidivism cycles. Diversion programs have demonstrated promising results in terms of lowering recidivism rates and treating underlying factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Furthermore, there is an increasing emphasis on evidence-based practices, as well as an understanding that investing in prevention and rehabilitation might be more cost-effective in the long term than incarceration.

Kelly (2019) argues that the death penalty is problematic because it is frequently applied arbitrarily and inconsistently. He claims that the choice to apply the death penalty might vary greatly depending on circumstances such as the jurisdiction, the specific judge or prosecutor handling the case, and even the defendant's ethnicity and socioeconomic background. This lack of uniformity affects the fairness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system and raises questions about the possibility of racial and socioeconomic prejudice in the application of the death penalty. In twenty years, the death sentence will most certainly be abolished in the United States. Globally, there is a growing trend towards abolition of the death sentence, with an increasing number of countries abolishing it outright. In recent years, there has been a decrease in the usage of the capital penalty in the United States, with fewer executions and death sentences being imposed. Furthermore, public opinion is turning against the death sentence, particularly among younger people. As society becomes more aware of the weaknesses in the criminal justice system and the possibility of false convictions, I believe there will be growing pressure in the United States to abolish the death penalty. Question 2 The insanity defense is rarely utilized as a criminal defense strategy because it is difficult to argue. To prove insanity, the defendant must show that they were unable to understand the nature or implications of their actions, or that they were unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime. This can be difficult to demonstrate since it necessitates expert testimony from mental health professionals as well as strong evidence to support the claim of insanity. Furthermore, many nations have tight criteria and high requirements for accepting an insanity defense, thus limiting its use as a strategy. The decision to abolish the insanity defense is a complex and contentious issue, and it leaves mixed opinion. On one hand, there are valid arguments for removing the insanity defense from the legal system. Critics argue that it is an outdated concept that allows dangerous individuals to escape full accountability for their actions. They believe that the focus should be on protecting society and punishing wrongdoers, rather than providing a defense that can easily be manipulated. The insanity defense, on the other hand, has its advantages. It acknowledges that mental illness can impede a person's ability to grasp the nature and consequences of their actions. It gives an opportunity to divert people with mental illnesses away from incarceration and towards treatment, which can help them recover and avoid additional harm. Furthermore, eliminating the defense may prevent people from getting mental health care because they are afraid it will be used against them in court. Implementing alternative sentencing options is one recommendation for reducing costs associated with incarcerating elderly criminals while simultaneously keeping society secure. Non-custodial alternatives could include home arrest, electronic monitoring, or community service programs tailored expressly for senior offenders. These alternative sentencing choices would serve two functions. For starters, they would give a low-cost alternative to the hefty costs of housing and caring for elderly inmates. Elderly people sometimes require specialized medical care and accommodations, which raises the expense of detention dramatically. These persons may be supervised in the community at a fraction of the expense of incarceration if alternatives to incarceration were used. Second, these new sentencing choices would improve public safety. Many senior criminals pose a minimal risk of reoffending to society, particularly if their offence was nonviolent or motivated by factors such as substance misuse or financial difficulty. Elderly offenders can be given the opportunity to address the underlying issues that lead to their illegal behavior by adopting programs that focus on rehabilitation, assistance, and reintegration into the

society. This could include making substance misuse treatment, mental health services, or career training programs available. The financial burden and potential threats to society can be reduced by reducing the number of elderly offenders in prison and providing them with alternative sentencing choices tailored to their requirements. This strategy is consistent with the ideals expressed in William R. Kelly's book, "The Future of Crime and Punishment," in that it emphasizes sensible, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing crime while saving money. According to the information revealed in Kelly's book, prosecutors in the United States wield much too much power. This is demonstrated in numerous ways, as explained in the book. To begin, Kelly emphasizes that prosecutors have enormous discretion in the criminal justice system. They have the authority to select which charges to file, what plea bargains to offer, and whether or not to prosecute a case at all. This discretionary power permits prosecutors to effectively control the outcome of a case, which frequently results in unfair consequences. This is especially troubling in the case of low-level offences, where prosecutors can use the prospect of serious charges to pressure people into accepting unreasonable plea deals. Second, the book emphasizes prosecutors' influence over bail and pretrial detention decisions. Prosecutors can make bail recommendations and argue for pretrial detention, thus determining whether accused people are released or detained before their trial. This authority is easily abused, resulting in the wasteful and unlawful incarceration of people awaiting trial, disproportionately harming those who cannot afford bail. This lack of consistency can jeopardize the notion of equal justice under the law and lead to arbitrary conclusions. Kelly also mentions that prosecutors have qualified immunity, which protects them from civil accountability for misconduct or negligence in their duty. This immunity might empower prosecutors to act with impunity, knowing that they will not face personal consequences for any wrongdoing. This lack of accountability contributes to the perception that prosecutors have too much power. In "The Future of Crime and Punishment," William R. Kelly believes that transferring people with mental illnesses from jail to mental health providers can be a successful strategy. This is because incarcerating people with mental illnesses frequently worsens their conditions while doing nothing to address underlying causes. Providing mental health care, on the other hand, can assist address the underlying causes of criminal behavior and lessen the chance of recidivism. However, it is critical to ensure that proper resources are accessible outside of the criminal justice system to effectively support and treat those with mental illnesses. According to Kelly (2019), skilled professionals who can assess the scenario can identify whether an individual is actually experiencing a mental health crisis or attempting to counterfeit mental illness. These personnel may include mental health doctors or crisis intervention teams who are skilled at detecting symptoms of true mental illness. Furthermore, the usage of standardized assessment tools and procedures can aid in the creation of accurate evaluations. With the proper training and resources, police officers can make informed decisions about whether a person is actually experiencing a mental health crisis or is attempting to game the system. Question 3 It would be extremely beneficial for Texas to reinstate the legislation requiring minor suspects to consult with a criminal attorney before being questioned by police officers. For starters, this regulation would

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

ensure that juveniles' constitutional rights are protected. A criminal attorney present would help adolescents understand their rights and keep them from incriminating themselves accidentally or under duress. This would not only protect their legal rights, but would also contribute to a more equitable and just judicial system. Having an attorney present during interrogations would serve to level the playing field between children and law enforcement. During interrogations, juveniles are often weak and prone to deception or intimidation tactics used by law enforcement agents. A criminal attorney would act as a legal advocate for the juvenile suspect, coaching and guiding them throughout the process to ensure they receive fair treatment and are informed of their rights. Furthermore, having an attorney present would improve the veracity of information gathered during interrogations. Attorneys can help prevent false or pressured confessions, which are common among minors due to their lack of legal knowledge and sensitivity to external pressures. This policy would contribute to the integrity and efficacy of the criminal justice system by ensuring that only authentic and reliable information is received. Finally, by allowing juvenile criminals to consult with an attorney prior to interrogation, this legislation would aid in their rehabilitation and future chances. It would allow for a more comprehensive approach to tackling the root causes of adolescent delinquency. Attorneys can help adolescents comprehend the repercussions of their choices, explore alternate options, and gain access to critical resources and services. According to William Kelly, of the three U.S. Supreme Court juvenile justice decisions discussed, In re Gault (1967) had the greatest impact on the juvenile justice system. In this decision, the Court ruled that juveniles had the right to due process, which includes the right to be served with charges, the right to counsel, the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to remain silent. This ruling dramatically increased juvenile offenders' constitutional rights and moved them closer to the protections accorded to adults in criminal proceedings. It changed the emphasis from a paternalistic to a more legalistic and individualized approach, ensuring that adolescents' fundamental rights are not violated. This important ruling lay the groundwork for subsequent juvenile justice changes. The three juvenile justice cases have had an impact on the administration of justice for juvenile defendants, providing them with more justice. The ideals of justice, due process, and individualized treatment for juvenile defendants have been strengthened by these court decisions. The Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment's restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision acknowledged that juveniles have a lower level of guilt and a higher capacity for rehabilitation. The Court concluded in Graham v. Florida that life sentences without the possibility of release for non-homicide offences committed by adolescents are unconstitutional. This decision recognized the possibility of rehabilitation as well as the importance of individualized punishment. Finally, in Miller v. Alabama, the Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders violate the Eighth Amendment's restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling emphasized the significance of taking the defendant's youth and possibility for rehabilitation into account while sentencing. Overall, these court decisions have resulted in more justice for juvenile prisoners by recognizing their distinctive qualities and giving them a fair shot at rehabilitation.

The age of culpability, or criminal responsibility, varies by state in the United States. However, the widespread view is that the age of 18 is when people are deemed adults and hence legally responsible for their acts. This implies they can be tried in criminal court as adults and incur adult penalties. For various reasons, I support this age of liability. For starters, at the age of 18, people are legally recognized as adults in many areas of life, such as voting, signing contracts, and joining the military. It follows that they should be held liable for their criminal activities as well. The brain development and decision- making abilities of adolescents are still undergoing significant changes until around the age of 25. The prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control, judgment, and decision-making, is not fully developed until this age. Finally, treating young offenders as adults can have severe and long-lasting negative consequences. Placing them in adult facilities puts them at risk of physical and emotional harm, and it also hinders their chances of successful rehabilitation. According to William Kelly (2019), the decrease in juvenile incarceration over the last ten years can be attributed to a number of factors, including lower juvenile crime rates, the implementation of evidence- based rehabilitative programs, and a shift towards community-based alternatives to incarceration. He anticipates that this tendency will continue as governments and justice systems recognize the ineffectiveness and high costs of old punitive tactics. There is potential for additional decreases in juvenile incarceration if resources and emphasis turn towards prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation. Reference Kelly, William. R. (2019). The Future of Crime and Punishment: Smart Policies for Reducing Crime and Saving Money. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-2388-1

Midterm Exam

Related Documents