Summary
The author presents a study on environmental crimes by asserting the sentencing of the offenders. The article focuses on environmental crimes to reveal that they receive more lenient court sentences compared to other non-environmental crimes. The report analyses green crimes such as illegal logging, illegal wildlife trade as well as crimes against animals. The author asses that environmental crimes are rare and individual level, and more attention is paid to corporate institutions. According to the author, environmental crimes cause more harm and have higher estimated costs non-environmental crimes such as street crimes (Cochran et al., 2018). The cost of environmental crimes is seen in the effect of pollution on health care in the treatment of diseases.
The discussion is keen on the damage impacted on the environment by corporate institutions and the resultant harm, threat, and danger imposed on humanity. It also addresses the high mortality rate caused by air pollution and asserts that both corporate and individual crimes are destructive. Thus, sterner action should be put in place to deter their occurrence. The author also evaluates in-depth offenses committed against the environment by individuals such as poaching and dumping (Cochran et al., 2018). The article concludes that individual rimes though addressed more leniently by court sentences, are dangerous and harmful in the long run. The lenient sentencing of environmental crimes is associated with limited knowledge and lack of information where judges and prosecutors are unaware of the grave consequences of environmental crimes. Thus, punishments for green crimes are rare, less severe, and viewed as lesser criminal offenses compared to non-environmental crimes such as drug trade and violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Main argument
The main argument provided by the author in the article is that the treatment of courts and social control institutions on environmental crimes are more lenient compared to non-environment crimes (Greife et al., 2017). The author asserts that environment crimes receive lenient sentences from the courts due to lack of information on the harms of the atrocities caused by limited discussions on local and state policies. As a result, environmental crimes are viewed as less dangerous or threatening compared to other crimes (Cochran et al., 2018). The article also presents the idea that focus on corporate crimes compared to individual crimes leads to more lenient sentences towards individuals.
Analysis
Environmental crimes have significantly increased and are continuously recognized as highly profitable in the world. Despite the threat in the increase in illegal activities on the environment, the court system has continued to present fewer risks for the criminals. The crimes are not regarded as a priority and thus lack the appropriate response of social control institutions and the government (Cochran et al., 2018). The most prevalent environmental crimes include wildlife crimes, illegal logging. Illegal fishing, illegal mining, and pollution crimes (Wright, 2017). The study focuses on the significant gaps identified in response to environmental crimes.
The shortcomings include the lack of information, data, and awareness on the impact of environmental crimes on world societies. The gap also rises from the limited use of legislation and criminal procedures, poor governance, which results in the lack of capacity in enforcement. The article addresses environmental crimes as a threat to sustainable development and highlights the need for intervention through environmental law enforcement. Thus, criminal prosecution and court sentencing on environment crimes should be incorporated as part of environmental protection enforcement strategy (Wright, 2017).
Environmental crimes need to be treated more harshly by providing judges with specific sentences that should be imposed in various categories of environmental crimes. It is also essential that individuals and corporate institutions understand the threat posed by environmental crimes and the resultant criminal prosecution associated with such crimes (Greife et al., 2017). The local and state governments need to engage in fighting environmental crimes by involving the local communities through training on ecological crimes and prosecution procedures and sentences.
Review
The author provides clear and organized arguments on the patterns of court systems in environmental crimes. The article provides evidence through research conducted in the state of Florida on personal engagement in environmental crimes as well as corporate involvement. An accurate report, discussion, and conclusions are provided by the authors informing the reader on the current state of the criminal system in response to environmental crimes. Based on the evidence presented, the argument that formal institutions of social control treat environment crimes less severe compared to other non-environmental crimes (Cochran et al., 2018) is logical and sensible. The argument explains the increased rates of environmental crimes and the adverse experiences of pollutions and healthcare problems rampant in today's society (Wright, 2017). The arguments presented in the article conform to other research and information provided on the topic of environmental crimes.
The article is intended for a general audience but specifically targets individuals with a tendency for engaging in environmental crimes due to low criminal risks and high profitability. The report also suits the criminal justice system as t address their response to environmental law. The article, therefore, is also intended for judges and court prosecutors, policymakers, and the government. The report is convincing and serves as an informative piece offering insights on the right approach to environmental crime and the need for improvement on court sentencing (Wright, 2017). The article provides little information on environmental laws and the needed court sentencing to improve the justice on ecological crimes. The topic of discussion is highly useful for society and individuals interested in environmental law (Greife et al., 2017). The information provided is crucial to activists and crusaders for the environment. It highlights the critical areas that the court system has failed the environment in the issuance of lenient sentences for serious, dangerous, and threatening crimes.
References
Cochran, J. C., Lynch, M. J., Toman, E. L., & Shields, R. T. (2018). Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment? Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 34 (1), 37-66.
Greife, M., Stretesky, P. B., Shelley, T. O. C., & Pogrebin, M. (2017). Corporate environmental crime and environmental justice. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 28 (4), 327-346.
Wright, G. (2017). Conceptualising and combating transnational environmental crime. In Transnational Environmental Crime (pp. 33-48). Routledge.
