Classical Theory Pertains To Crime Prevention

Classical Theory Pertains To Crime Prevention The classical school of criminology is a group of thinkers of crime and punishment in the 18th century. The most prominent members, such as Cesare Beccaria, shared the idea that criminal behavior could be understood and controlled. The classical theory insisted that individuals are rational beings who pursue their own interests, trying to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. The following manuscript will cover three key concepts the origins of classical thought, popular forerunner of classical thought, Cesare Beccaria, and how the classical theory pertains to crime prevention. Lastly, the educational material will show that crime is caused by natural forces and the absence of effective punishment allows it to continue. With clearly defined laws, public punishment, and the elimination of judicial discretion crime can be prevented by deterrence. Crimes and Punishment: How the Classical Theory Pertains to Crime Prevention Criminology has six theoretical developments in its discipline. This essay will look into the classical school theory. The classical school of criminology has many parts such as the major principles of the classical school, forerunners of classical thought, and policy implications of the classical school. First, I will define classical theory as well as summarize the origins of classical thought. Next, I will explore one of the most popular forerunners of classical thought, Cesare Beccaria. Lastly, I will discuss how the classical theory pertains to crime prevention as well as how deterrence plays apart. Literature Review To properly compose a manuscript on how the classical theory pertains to crime prevention, classical theorist Beccarias work had to be examined. Many of the reforms that occurred in the 18th century can be ascribed to Beccaria (Newman Marongiu, 1990). Beccaria (1983), discussed that the more promptly the punishment follows the crime the more useful it will be. Martin, Mutchnick, and Austin (1990), states that the classical and neoclassical thought represents more a philosophy of justice than it does a theory of crime causation. Cohen and Felson (1979), suggested that lifestyles contribute significantly to both the volume and the type of crime found in any society. Thus, Reed and Yeager (1996), examined Gottfredson and Hirshis theory of crime, with particular respect to its applicability to organizational offending. Moriarty and Williams (1996), discussed the individual choice and a relative disregard for the role of social factors in crime causation, such as poverty, poor home environment, and inadequate socialization. Rational choice theory seems to assume that everyone is equally capable of making a rational decision; however, it depends on the personality of the individual (Tunnell, 1990). In dealing with punishment and how it deters crime it was necessary to look at studies. Although one might expect study results to show that the death penalty deters crime; however, it was found that the rates of murder committed between states that have eliminated the death penalty and those that retain it had little variation (Bailey, 1979). Sitze (2009), discusses how capital punishment presents a problem for the philosophy of law. Also, Sitze expands on Beccaria thought of how the death penalty is bad economy of power. Discussion Classical Theory The classical theory dominated crime theory during the late 1700s and the 1800s. The essential ideas of classical theory include individuals are rational beings who pursue their own interest, trying to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Unless they are deterred by the threat of swift, certain, and appropriately severe punishments, they may commit crimes in their pursuit of self-interest (Martinetal, 1990). Classical theory argues that crime is caused by natural forces or forces of this world, such as the absence of effective punishments. Classical theory was developed in reaction to the harsh, corrupt, and often arbitrary nature of the legal system in the 1700s (Vold et al., 2002). Classical theorists were mainly interested in critiquing this system and offering proposals for its reform, but embedded in their arguments is a theory of criminal behavior. The circumstances of some individuals, then, may lead them to evaluate the potential pains of punishment and pleasures of crime differently than other individuals. Poor people, for example, may be less deterred by the pains of punishment and more attracted by the pleasures of crime (Beccaria, 1983). Classical theory assumes that people are rational and engage in crime to minimize their pain and maximize their pleasure. Some criminologists, however, argue that many offenders are not rational and that crime is not in their self-interest. Rather, they engage in crime because of forces beyond their control and they often suffer greatly because of their behavior (Vold et al., 2002). Classical theorists state that whether people engage in crime is largely dependent on the swiftness, certainty, and appropriateness of the punishments they face. Cesare Beccaria Cesare Beccaria was an 18th century Italian nobleman and economist. Beccaria was considered to most the father of Criminology. Because of Beccarias work he was the most important figure head of what is known as the Classical Theory. The 18th century was times in history were severe and often extreme punishment was enforced for crimes committed. During such a time in history Beccaria offered the theory of utility. Beccaria examined the causes of delinquent and criminal behavior, and by doing so was able to scientifically determine what causes such deviant behavior. Beccaria rejected the theories of the European Enlightenment which characterized the deviant behavior under the theories of naturalism and even demonology. Beccaria wanted to pass on the philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment, by doing so these new theories passed on rationalism and humanitarianism (Martin et al., 1990). Beccaria set out to make punishment for committing crimes rational. He believed that there should be a hierarchy of punishment a scale determining what punishments is suitable for the behavior and/or intent. The scale of punishment would have set punishments for repeat offenders as well as for the more serious crimes. This would change how the death penalty was imposed. The scale of punishment, Beccaria was working on, would only impose the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime and not the act or acts of committing or involvement. Beccaria also believed that judges had to broad of discretion on which punishment to impose on what act of deviant behavior. Therefore, Beccaria favored specific punishments fitting each crime. He published an historic piece, An Essay on Crimes and Punishment, in 1764, to communicate his observations on the laws and justice system of his time. In the Essay, Beccaria distilled the notion of the social contract into the idea that laws are the c onditions under which independent and isolated men united to form a society. (Beccaria, 1983) Crime Preventions and Deterrence Deterrence theory most fully reflects the ideas of classical theory. Deterrence theorists argue that people are rational and pursue their own interests, attempting to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. They choose to engage in crime if they believe it is to their advantage. The best way to prevent crime, therefore, is through punishments that are swift, certain, and appropriately severe. Deterrence theorists, like classical theorists, focus primarily on the impact of official punishments on crime. Deterrence occurs when someone refrains from committing a crime because he or she fears the certainty, swiftness, and/or severity of formal legal punishment (Paternoster Bachman, 2001). Deterrence theory makes a distinction between two types of deterrence; specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the idea that punishment reduces the crime of those specific people who are punished. So, punishing someone for a crime should reduce the likelihood of further crime by that person. Studies on general deterrence ask whether punishment deters crime among people in the general population. It has been argued that punishment may deter crime among those who are not punished. Therefore, deterrence through punishment is an effective way to prevent crime (Paternoster Piquero, 1995). Conclusion Throughout the essay classical theory, Cesare Beccaria, and deterrence has been explored in relation with one another. The manuscript disclosed that individuals are rational beings who pursue their own interests, trying to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Classical theorist Cesare Beccaria determined that if the justice system reformed such as using rational penalties for crimes committed then such behavior could be deterred. The deterrence theory proved that people do refrain from committing crimes because of the fear of punishment. Therefore, the deterrence theory most fully reflects the ideas of classical theory.

Reward and Punishment

In America we all live by laws, codes, and rules that have been put in place before we were even born. With each law and rule there is also a causal effect if we do not properly follow them. For instance, we know that if you kill someone, there will be negative consequences. Also, if we excel in our career, we will be rewarded appropriately. Justice and fairness are issues that we all strive to achieve. The concept of good and bad in regards to justice and fairness ties into our reward and punishment systems. Let’s take a look at how each of these is used in America.First we have reward. â€Å"Reward is one method of distributing on a fair and just basis the good we are concerned with† (Thiroux, and Krasemann 122). Reward is very desirable in many people eyes. We have the need to be rewarded for our efforts, whether it is at work or at home. There are two major theories that deal with how reward should be distributed which are retributivist and utilitarian. Retributivis t, or deserts theory rewards based on what people deserve for what they have done in the past, not for what the consequences for what they have done will be.Rewarding based on one’s efforts is the main focus. According to the retributivist theory, if two people are enrolled in the same Ethics class and put in the same effort, they should end up with the same grade. This would seem to be unfair to many people. The example alone is one of the major issues regarding retributivist theory. There is no incentive for a person to produce a higher quality of work or seek a dangerous occupation. Utilitarian theory is based upon good consequences for everyone affected by acts or rules (Thiroux, and Krasemann 129).The emphasis is on the future and the rewards should be given only when someone is seeking to bring good consequences to everyone. The idea is to give someone an incentive to do better or work harder (Thiroux, and Krasemann 129). This theory also believes in rewarding people fo r working in dangerous or unpleasant occupations because it ultimately brings about the greater good for everyone involved. One problem of this theory is that the rewards are based on production and not hard work. In America I believe that we tend to use a combination of both retributive and utilitarian.Each theory has aspects to them that sound similar to the way some people are evaluated for rewards. While there are no hard fast rules as to how we should distribute rewards, everyone can agree that it should be done in the fairest method possible. The four basic ways that goods or rewards can be distributed are equally among all without merit, a person’s abilities, merit, and needs. The combination of criteria is specific to the situation for which we are basing the reward upon. For example, we distribute goods out based on needs. Think of a homeless person and what their needs might be; shelter, food, water, just to name a few.There are many local homeless shelters and soup kitchens that help meet these needs. Someone that is not homeless might argue that it isn’t fair that they would not be allowed to sleep in the shelter or eat at the soup kitchen, but if we think about the criteria for distributing goods, this person does not have the same need as a homeless person does. If the person disregards the need of others over his based on selfishness, the result could be in the form of punishment. Punishment is defined as â€Å"the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed (i. e. , the transgression of a law or command).Punishment may take forms ranging from capital punishment, forced labor, imprisonment and fines (Encyclopedia Britannica). There are three different theories regarding how punishment should be distributed. The retributive theory states that punishment should be given only when it is deserved and the severity should match the extent of the crime. It is only concerned with the past and is given to deter futu re offensive behavior. Punishment is given to restore order within a society. A view of retributivism can be found in a saying in the Old Testament, â€Å"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth† (Thiroux, and Krasemann 135).Retributive justice attempts to ensure that the punishment fits the crime so if you have committed a murder, you are put into prison for longer than if you have stolen a car. Another view is that of the utilitarian theory and it is focused on the future rather than the past. Punishment is not given because a crime, but given so that something good could result. An example would be instilling shame in a person if they did something that we feel is wrong. Lastly, we have the restitution theory. Restitution is provided to victims by those that committed the crimes.This could be accomplished easily when dealing with a crime like theft. According to restitution, if we give back the item that was stolen, justice would be achieved. When thinking about how Amer ica approaches punishment, I believe that we again use a combination of theories. The United States, we have been focused on retribution mainly because of the idea of â€Å"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth†¦Ã¢â‚¬  which has been influential for thousands of years and used in ancient law (Encyclopedia Britannica). This focus on retribution has made the United States demand retaliation against criminals.This can clearly be demonstrated with the terrorist attacks of 9-11. The use of shame is also used a lot and I usually see it in younger children as a tactic to teach the child right from wrong. Restitution is also commonly used when the punishment can be easily resolved with this method. There will always be controversy over the effectiveness of how we reward and punish people in our society. The best we can hope for is that everyone tries to conduct themselves in the highest morals possible and in the event that punishment must be given it is done so in the fairest way p ossible.Punishment is necessary because it can also give a sense of closure and helps victims move on with their lives.Bibliography â€Å"Punishment. † Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2010 http://original. search. eb. com. bloomington. libproxy. ivytech. edu. allstate. libproxy. ivytech. edu/eb/article-272347. Thiroux, Jacques, and Keith Krasemann. Ethics Theory and Practice. 10th. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. 122. Print.

The “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by the late Martin Luther King

The â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail† by the late Martin Luther King, Jr. is a very inspiring work about injustice, oppression, and fighting for everyone’s rights. He was able to respond to his critics in a manner where he appeared calm and responsible. He laid out all his reasons for his actions and why he was in such a place without becoming angry and bitter at the situation.One example of enthymeme found in his letter is the statement â€Å"I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. † This statement is considered as an enthymeme because it has a part of the argument that is missing since this is already assumed. It can be broken down in three parts: laws that are considered morally wrong should not be obeyed by the public; segregation ordinances are morally wrong; thus, segregation ordinances should be disobeyed.He states that segregation allows other people to think that they are superior from others, while some may feel t hat they are much lower than the rest. Another enthymeme is seen on Marin Luther King, Jr. ’s letter, specifically in the 10th paragraph where he talks about opposing to violent tension and â€Å"the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The assumed premise here is that gadflies have the ability to improve people’s lives.The minor premise is that the author, Martin Luther King, is a gadfly. As such, it is concluded that the author’s efforts will greatly improve the lives of the people. Martin Luther King was able to express his intentions by using logical arguments to persuade his audience. He was effective in his purpose by having clear examples and arguments that answered the questions and concerns of the clergymen who wrote to him.

Evaluating A Company s Overall Risk Management Strategy

Mitigating supply chain risk is a critical component of a company’s overall risk management strategy. According to the Contingency Theory, the appropriateness and effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies are contingent on the internal and external environments and that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy (Talluri, Kull, Yildiz, Yoon, 2013, p. 253). New information technologies make it possible to extend supply chains to global markets (Sahin and Robinson 2002, cited by Talluri, Kull, Yildiz, Yoon, 2013, p.253). This increases the dependence on outside resources and makes firms vulnerable to failures affecting all partners within the supply chain (Craighead et al. 2007). Uncertainties in factors such as market conditions, supply†¦show more content†¦3039). A failure of any one element in a supply chain potentially causes disruptions for all partnering companies upstream and downstream (Yang and Yang 2010, cited by Diabat et al, 2012, p. 3039). Although many risks exist in business, three have applicability to the supply chain, namely supply risks, operations risks and demand risks. Supply risks reside in the course of movement of materials from suppliers to the firm and include the reliability of suppliers, and considerations such as single versus multiple sourcing and centralized versus decentralized sourcing. Operational risks affect the firm’s internal ability to produce goods and services, ultimately affecting the profitability of the company, and may result from a breakdown in manufacturing or processing capability and/or changes in technology. Demand risks reside in the movement of goods from the firm to the customers, and include the risk of obsolescence, stock-outs, and over-inventory. The development of effective strategies for managing risk depends on understanding the sources of risk and their relationships (Diabat, Govindan, Panicker, 2012, p. 3039). Tang (2006, cited by Diabat et al., p. 3040) divided risk into operational risks and disruption risks. Operational risks are associated with inherent uncertainties such as uncertain customer demand, uncertain supply, and uncertain cost, whereas disruption risks are associated with major disruptions caused by natural and man-made disasters