 |
 |
|
|
|
||
|
Crime Control
There is ongoing in reference to two competing "models of the criminal process": the Crime Control model's key concerns are the apprehension and punishment of criminals; the Due Process model views the criminal justice system's primary purpose as protecting suspects from legal processing errors and to limit the government's ability to use the legal system arbitrarily and abusively. The tension between these two models goes to the heart of fundamental questions in criminology and related disciplines. Simply put, the more crime control we want, the less due process we can gave; the more due process we want, the less crime control we can expect – Jerome Skolnick has referred to this problem as a "dilemma of democratic society." One of the cornerstones of democracy is equality and in the legal system, this means that justice should be "blind" to personal differences; civil rights advocates and law-and-order champions have different views on the right balance between public safety and individual freedom. In examining the criminal justice system's effectiveness, the text's view stresses the "limits of the criminal sanction" – the amount of crime control tolerable in a democratic society can ultimately do little to prevent criminality. The concept of police goes back to ancient times. The development of police forces in the United States followed the English model. Early U.S. police forces were notoriously corrupt and brutal and did little to effectively prevent crime or provide public services. Nineteenth-century policing had many problems with corruption, which, essentially, was their "main business." Most police time is spent on activities like directing traffic, responding to traffic accidents, and other mundane matters; only about 20 percent of police time is spent questioning witnesses, arresting suspects, and other aspects of crime control. In his classic book on policing, Jerome Skolnick developed the very influential concept of the police officer's working personality, which consists of a suspicion and even hostile orientation toward the public, engendering an "us versus them" mentality. The experiences of criminology professor turned police officer, George Kirkham, help to illustrate this mentality and to explain why different forms of police misconduct occur, principally police brutality and corruption. One important factor affecting the amount of brutality across police forces is the "operating forces" of the forces. The issue of racism in police brutality also remains highly controversial. Social class prejudice also helps to explain the phenomenon. Scholars have also considered whether racism affects the police use of deadly force; the evidence is complex and the issue of systematic racism in police shootings of civilians requires continued investigation. The available evidence indicates that women are rarely the victims of police brutality as it's usually defined. Although women's gender may protect them from police beatings, it subjects them to police sexual violence (PSV). PSV appears to be related to male officers' sexist ideology, the extreme power differential between policemen and female citizens, and the situational opportunity of the police to commit acts of PSV. The police corruption that existed a century ago is still common today, despite periodic investigations and exposes by the press and government commissions. Sometimes police brutality, corruption, and other misbehavior become so rampant that, when discovered, they take on a new life as a full-fledged scandal, reminding us of the dangers of having out-of-control police in a democratic society. At every stage of the criminal justice system, officials exercise discretion. The first stage of discretionary justice is the police officer's decision to arrest or cite someone for an alleged offense. Perhaps the most controversial issue in police discretion is whether arrest practices are racially discriminatory. There are mixed, complex findings on police racism. It appears that dominant groups (whites) feel more threatened as the size of minority groups grows and respond with legal control and other measures designed to protect their dominant status. Two other particularly controversial issues are racial profiling and racial discrimination in drug-related arrests. There is ecological evidence for racial discrimination in policing. The issue of gender discrimination in arrest is less controversial but no less interesting. Do police make a difference in crime? If the hypothesis is that more police and more arrests result in lower crime rates, support for this hypothesis is minimal at best. If extra police don't help reduce crime rates, does arrest make a difference? Overall, this does not appear to be the case. One reason arrest rates might not affect crime rates is that potential criminals have little idea of what the arrest rates are. For better or for worse, research on crackdowns and zero-tolerance policing suggests they don't offer much hope for reducing crime; crackdowns appear to be at best a "quick fix" to the crime problem with no long-term effects or have had little success in the war against drugs; if there are short-term effects, these probably stem from the heightened visibility of police. There is some evidence that community policing may help to reduce crime. The best evidence suggests that legal technicalities do little to hinder police and court effectiveness. Overall, the literature on police, arrest, and crime rates provides little evidence that we can substantially reduce street crime by adding more police or otherwise increasing the number of arrests that can occur. In line with a sociological perspective on crime, it seems most promising to address the causes of U.S. criminal behavior, including economic inequality, inadequate parenting, violent masculinity, and a culture that values individualism. In a democratic society, where everyone is held equal under the law, everyone should also be equal in the law. Female police officers and African-American officers experience racism, sexism, and some suffer a double burden of both race and sex.
Barkan, S. (2006). Criminology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Social Control Since parents are in close contact with their children, they are the most powerful inhibiting force in their children’s lives (Brannigan, 1997, pp. 408). Therefore, the parents are the best ones to instill self control into their children. By engaging in family interactions, strong parent-child bonds will be created and the children will come to better accept the parent’s values (Barkan, 1999, pp. 211, 217-219). On the other hand, if the parents fail to effectively rear their children, the children will not develop a high level of self control. They will continue to act selfishly, impulsively, and recklessly. Indeed, these children will carry their low self control behaviors throughout adulthood. Just because someone is highly educated and obtains a good paying job does not mean that the person necessarily has high self control. The person could have performed deviant behaviors all the way through college. On the other hand, if the person was studying alone most of the time, criminal opportunities may not have readily presented themselves. However, once a person with low self control does obtain a white collar job, the opportunities to commit crimes become abundant. Since white collar workers are many times given latitude in their jobs, as compared to blue collar workers, there is less direct supervision over them. Because there is even less control over the person than when his or her parents were around, the temptation to commit crimes becomes overwhelming. Knowing that white collar criminals are seldom convicted, as compared to street criminals, the excitement leads the person to commit the crime, while disregarding the damage that it causes to others (Liska & Messner, 1999, pp. 192). The person is short sighted and does not consider long term effects. For example, if the person is involved in chemical dumping, that person may save the company a lot of money now, but it may cost someone else much more money later on when it needs to be cleaned up. In addition, many innocent people can be hurt. This would be the same as other white collar crimes, such as sales fraud. The person does not consider the long term effects that the sales fraud may have on the elderly, for example. Indeed, a person with low self control wants immediate gratification. Thus, even though chemical dumping and sales fraud may require some planning, the person is failing to consider the more serious long term consequences that someone else will have to deal with later on. In applying the self control theory to myself, my father, who was unemployed during my youth, spent much time with me. For example, he worked with me every day as I practiced different football skills. Then when I was 9 years old, I joined a little league football team. Back in those days, not everyone made the team. Because there were more players than were needed, the coaches would push the players until some quit. The ones that made it learned not to draw attention to themselves because that usually resulted in some sort of discipline (pain). Thus, being a show off (selfish) was not rewarded. Furthermore, self gratification was seldom received during practice; practice was hard work. However, the delayed gratification on game day was well worth it. Having learned to delay personal gratification, this has served me well on the police force, where low self control can end a career. Also, as a police officer, it may take years to solve a crime, and this can be very frustrating if a person demands immediate gratification. Indeed, people with low self control effectively limit their career choices. References Barkan, S. (2006). Criminology: A sociological understanding (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Brannigan, A. (1997). Self control, social control and evolutionary psychology: Towards an integrated perspective on crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, (Vol. 39, Issue 4), 403-431. Liska, A. and Messner, S. (1999). Perspectives on Crime and Deviance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
BURDEN OF PRODUCTION
BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD Placed on a party to introduce initial evidence to prove an issue or risk a DIRECTED VERDICT against them USUALLY ON THE PLAINTIFF/STATE To prove elements of prima facie case Then can Shift the Burden to opposing party.
Criminal cases (prosecutor may never have a Directed Verdict)
BURDEN OF PERSUASION
Degree to which the party must convince the trier of fact that the other side did not meet the elements of the prima facie case
DEFENDANTS BURDEN (After it shifts) DEFENDANT HAS BURDEN BY PREPONDERANCE
AFFIRMITAVE DEFENSES INSANITY, DURESS, ADAQUATE PROVOCATION, SELF DEFENSE
BURDENS
I. CIVIL CASE The Plaintiff must prove PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE More probably then not
II. CRIMINALLY RELATED CIVIL The Plaintiff must prove CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD In between (usually for fraud/dishonesty cases)
III. CRIMINAL CASE Prosecutor must prove to every element of the crime BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Mandatory and permissive (jury may find but doesn't not have to that the pressed fact from base of the given facts) presumptions exist
Then The DEFENDANT CARRIES THE BURDEN Ex: use insanity
Prosecutor must prove Def. did crime even without use of insanity. Once Prosecutor does that, Def. must prove elements of insanity, then they can use the defense otherwise cant use it. If Def. proves insanity, Prosecution has burden of proving the Def. was sane
BURSTING BUBBLE THEORY (shift of production) If wife proves H is gone for 7 yrs, (presumption of death) the burden of presumption shifts to other side, who can introduce evidence to show a witness who says they saw the H w/in 7 yrs.
Once the presumption is proven then the presumption (death) disappears or bursts
PRESUMPTIONS Inference, jury must draw which shifts burden of proving evidence to the other party
1) BASIC FACTS Once established given rise to other facts (presumed facts)
2) PRESUMED FACTS Once established will shift burden of production to other side
Ex: upon proof person absent for 7 yrs from their home, many jurisdictions presume that person died.
INFERENCE DOES NOT SHIFT ANY BURDEN |
||
|
BURDENS OF PROOF (pdf) EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS (pdf) JUDICAL NOTICE (pdf) UNAVAILABILITY REQUIRES (pdf) Continue to Chapter 2 |
||
| Return to Academics |