What are criminal justice theories? Strangely, from the criminal justice realm and studies, there would be very few definitions forwarded to suffice as clear enough answers to this question. Irrespective of the immense numbers of scholarly works and academic programs devoted to studying criminal justice, the legal field has hardly asked, let alone satisfied, this vital question (Jones, 2017). Given that theoretical frameworks are the conceptual and intellectual core of legitimate study aspects, the time has elapsed to develop a foundation intended to make theoretical sense of criminal justice. Various underlying approaches to the criminal justice system like the Criminology Theories, CBT have not yet failed man as they continue to yield positive results albeit they harbor a few negatives.
Criminology and Crime Justice definitive confines
It is not that criminal justice and criminology studies scholars lack the experience concerning the activity and theory aspects of theorizing as researchers have amassed a lot of theoretical works. Ideally, a more satisfying approach to the comprehension of this subject vests its foundation in answering the "why" question of crime as well as trying to explain escalating crime rates (Newburn, 2017). When the terminology theology is used within the field, it is often a time related to the definitive aspects of crime theory. Notably, an array of theory textbooks and theoretical courses base their concentration as far as this topic is concerned with exclusively explaining crime. Theoretical field research conducted, evidenced by the Justice Quarterly and Criminology journal publications of articles, in most cases tests the existing explanations about crime (Whitehead, 2017). As such, the theoretical confines, as well as the frameworks, are constructed on crime explanations but not criminal justice as an independent topic.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The prevalent underlying assumption existing in the field relates to the fact that criminology discipline is more centered and interested in explaining why crime happens thus being more theoretically oriented (Adler et al., 2016). It follows, then, that criminal justice studying is essentially a policy-tailored pursuit driving towards effecting crime-curbing initiatives as birthed from various theories concerning crime. As such, criminal justice is confined to the discerning role of what works and how to but incomplete in so far as comprehending the nature of our crime reactions.
Criminal Justice Theory: Varieties and Possibilities
Defining crime is an endeavor, so complex with the element of study having no agreement as a plethora of theories strive to offer an answer albeit tainted with conflicting evidence (Conklin, 2013). As such, the focal reason is the multifaceted type of the study object where the criminal justice entity is made up of many aspects of the public, media and legislative body.
Criminology relevant theories
The rationale behind committing a crime
Seeking to comprehend crime science, assessing reasons why someone breaks the law stands vital to run a debate concerning how criminal practice ought to be avoided and handled (Parmelee, 2011). Numerous theories have been advanced over the years, with continued exploration, in combination and individually, as criminologists look for the ultimate remedies in lowering levels and types of law breaking. Detailed below is a comprehensive summary of the vital approaches.
Theory of rational choice:
On the whole, people portray and base their actions to commit a crime on selfish interests after assessment and potential calculating outcomes (including punishment after getting caught) visa via the rewards.
The theory of Social disorganization:
Ideally, one’s social environments like the tangible aspects of one's surroundings can be held accountable for the behavioral outcomes said victim displays. Similarly, an environment painted over with deteriorating, and poor interactional morals have high chances of keeping up their crime rates (Bhui, 2009). Laced with high crime rates, such neighbor hoods may have some of the most impoverished schools, unoccupied and vandalized structures, and high unemployment rates with combinations of residential as well as commercial businesses.
Theory of Strain:
This approach suggests a majority of people bear the same life aspirations albeit not all have access to free or similar opportunities (Doherty, 2005). When people do not meet up to societal standards by use of the legal and acceptable means of hard work, persistence, and determination they may opt to assume success using different options.
Theory of Social learning:
Notably, a person develops the motivation to take part and commit a crime along with the skills to effectively do it with the aid and guidance of the people they live with.
The theory concerning social control relates to cases where a majority of the individuals would be breaking the law if it was not because of the societal restrictions placed against those from institutions such as learning centres, job stations and worship places.
Theory of Labelling:
Here, it is the people with authority and powerthat brand certain acts as crimes with branding one as a law breaker defines and turns him into one (a criminal) (Jones, 2017). On labeling one as a criminal by others, the public robs him off would be opportunities, possibly in the end birthing accelerated criminal behavior.
Evolution typical of long lines of genetics and biology, my mistake: Mental illness, bad eating habits, little brain activity, as well as dynamic rewards for heightened criminal activity have been forwarded as propellers for a crime.
Violent crime types
Currently, in criminal science, the way criminal practices are deciphered is dependent highly at how the crime that exists is broken down. Numbers on law terminology in ranking are there concerning various types criminal acts that are violent making it almost impossible for one to keep up concerning what means what (Marsh et al, 2004). Below are some of the most commonly committed crimes in society along with short descriptions of they are;
Murder: Relates to intentional ending of one’s life using any means detrimental to life.
Homicide: Relates to the killing of one irrespective of the circumstance.
First-degree murder: Most people and legal systems see this kind of crime as intentional as some states may refer to it as intended murder by one (the killer) harboring underlying motives for his actions.
Second-degree murder: Most confines define second-degree murder as unintentional killing where killers show elevated levels of indifference to human lives around him.
Felony murder: Eventual deaths that happen as felonies like robberies or kidnapping take place with all participants to the felonies chargeable with the murder case.
Manslaughter: the Accidental ending of one’s life by another person as a result of the latter’s reckless behavior that causes the death.
Negligent homicide: One causing the death of another through negligence.
Battery: Physically making offensive contact with the other person.
Assault: Looming threats of heightened bodily harm, without any form of physical presence of the killer.
Occasional assault: Attacking someone a considerably small level and non-life threatening injuries.
Battery or aggravated assault: Use of deadly and dangerous weapons to cause harm or even death to another party defines aggravated assault.
Vehicular assault: Harming the lives of others by one reckless driving leading to injuries of others.
Spousal assault (intimate partner violence or domestic assault): This refers to the violence between spouses.
Rape: Forcibly indulging one in having sexual relations between two parties, one an adult and the other below the legal age of 18. Mentally handicap persons are also classified under this kind of provision as incapable of having consensual sexual relations.
Sodomy: Forced oral or anal sex with a person of the same sex that is against the cultural and policy standards.
Dynamic Crime and Justice Concepts
From the old days where traditional societies had a makeup of smaller clans and tribes with traits of food gathering, said clans had a handful of people often with a leader. However, with the emergence of farming permanency of residences was something of reality as there was no need to move from one place to another (Kemshall, 2003). Notably, this realization brought forward the suggestion to have a joint leader in the form of either a clan head or a council of chiefs to help them govern their lands. Evidently, back then there was no law making bodies let alone law as it was imperative that since everyone could differentiate right from wrong the need for formal laws was neglected. But for cases where there was a dispute that arose before it could escalate to something else the decision making was left to the council of elders or clan head.
Justice back those days was a collective clan decision not open to individual input as they were, in fact, the primary sources of said disputes. Disputes between clans were offered a solution by the clan heads who based their decisions on an eye for an eye often as a way of equalizing the punishment (Newburn, 2017). Evidently, the notion of revenge in these societies was perhaps the highest regard and level of virtues the people by then upheld.
Justice back then translated vengeance for something wrong done by another party with the underlying notion that an “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” would be the best response. Ideally, this stood as somewhat a precise and controllable allowance for the unlimited rate at which the people back then took the inexistent law in their hands (Whitehead, 2017). As such, the equal punishment notion was geared at maintaining some degree of sanity when it came to delivery of justice with the same punishment level equalling the offense. Consequently, the underlying rationale for keeping and ensuring a certain level of equality when delivering justice was to keep the violence aspect in the justice delivery at a minimum (Conklin, 2013). In the end, such hedges to guide and direct the course of effective justice were capable of differentiating between equal and excessive retribution.
Equal retribution was the option that had the "an eye for an eye" rationale citing equal consequences for an offense. On the other hand, excessive retribution would perhaps have existed had there not been any form of control (Adler et al., 2016). As such, equal retribution was the preferred option of justice with its revolution emanated from the revenge aspect of clans that had disputes to resolve. Fast forward to more modern times, where larger societies existed and led to the birth of more structured government institutions. The emerging governmental institution had a somewhat positive welcome as opposed to the sole solution that had existed in the olden days.
In the middle Ages, the legal encompassment that supported government intervention but not personal revenge was the assumption that all people were the King’s property. As such, the ownership by the king guaranteed his “subjects” were not in any way exposed to the risks of injury due to the highly respected powers of the king that protected them (Conklin, 2013). Consequently, it was the king allowed to deliver an injury to his subjects alone hence in case one had wrangle with the other their case was brought to the King's attention to solve. On a similar note, the king did not have to attend to every Tom Dick & Harry had an audience with the Kinga as he had matters to attend. In such a scenario, a representative of the king took over the presiding and solution awarding to the concerned party.
It is therefore imperative to note that given the procedures that one went through to resolve an issue crime was an offense to society probably highlighting its sacred nature of sorts (Bhui, 2009). Ideally, to keep up with this rationale and doctrine, crime transitioned into a societal offense and not no longer just against a person.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and the Criminal Justice System
Perhaps no invention has garnered more attention across the criminal justice system than the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Used in the winding part of the 20 th Century, with the biggest patients as mentally ill and deinstitutionalized, CBT has since registered a footprint in almost every justice system aspect (Parmelee, 2011). Practitioners currently utilize CBT in reducing recidivism among juveniles and adults helping victims deal with results of crime, violence, depression and other issues.
CBT relates to a therapeutic class intervention with a common theory concerning one’s beliefs, attitudes and thoughts as well as one’s behavioral patterns. As such, the crucial premise of CBT is fundamental: The way one tunes his thoughts concerning certain situations molds his behaviors, actions, and choices (Doherty, 2005). In cases of maladaptive thoughts and attitudes birth destructive and inappropriate outcomes while a change in such thoughts for the better yields more receptive pro-social behaviors. Ideally, that is the therapeutic result of adopting the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy that looks to discern the negative attributes to one’s thoughts.
CBT focuses its approach on availing through group or individual therapy aimed at rectifying cognitive behavior processes that are flawed. As such, the vital CBT goal is to aid people, in general, make better behavioral decisions through comprehension of the unique ways people think (Newburn, 2017). The moment people become more self-aware cognitively theorists of CBT push that people can adapt to and learn new strategies to help them refrain from problematic behavior. For these reasons, rigorous assessments have examined CBT interventions within juvenile and criminal justice systems.
Does CBT work in Criminal Justice?
It is apparent that CBT works best and yields more results with the juveniles than any other group something that is consistent with its conceptual basis. It is imperative to note that adults are capable of developing more deeply rooted maladaptive cognitive processes that may be hard to change (Whitehead, 2017). Notably, CBT also appears to stand more effective in assisting victims of crime deal with trauma. There is supporting evidence that once applied to a closed and controlled setting like a prison therapeutic environment risks of reoffending by the inmates are averted.
However, not all that glitters is gold and true to this CBT does have its short comings like mixed results when CBT was applied to sex offenders (Adler et al, 2016). Furthermore, research highlights no outcomes in line with CBT preventing the reoccurrence of domestic violence by first-time offenders. This trufaithfultrue point that even within the strongholds of CBT's application where it is reported to be working out well, there is still some ineffectiveness noted.
Many concerns have been raised about the use of forensic evidence in securing convictions in murder cases. Forensic evidence has brought a chance in a criminal investigation because it narrows down to the original event of the crime but Concerns about DNA come because of wrong application (NFATC, 2013). The issue of backlog in forensic investigations is outstanding and contributes to the delay of delivery of justice in the county. In addition, there is a backlog of convicted offenders in a provision of DNA samples delays many processes causing a problem in the justice system (Department of Justice, 2017). It has to be noted that laws applied in the country are in line with the constitution and presentation of forensic evidence to court is in line with the Constitution. Therefore, concerns about forensic evidence have been raised in cases like murder, but that does not waive the relevance of forensic evidence in homicide criminal investigation.
The supreme law of the land governs all civil and criminal laws and to secure a conviction, the offense as against the accused must be asserted in line with constitutional principles. A person being a suspect does not deprive him of the constitutional right, and in submitting forensic evidence against him or her, the accused right to produce witnesses and cross-examine any evidence brought against him. In a criminal prosecution, proper procedures have to be observed irrespective of the nature of the evidence available for the court to consider for criminal cases. The constitutional rights of the offender stand no matter the nature of the evidence produced to secure his conviction. Therefore, forensic evidence has transformed the criminal justice system, but it does not waive the constitutional rights of the suspect.
Consequently, Crime and Justice Systems as well as the programs ought to be informed and build their assumptions from the most rigorous evidence made available. However, it should not be forgotten that CBT programs may bear differences in their offing and emphasis depending on the participant’s needs as well as the types of participants involved in the experiment (Conklin, 2013). As some are mainly driven towards anger management plus building skills in conflict resolution, others are centred on apportioning and assumption of personal responsibility for crimes as well as constructing victim empathy.
Conclusively, society's view and approach concerning aspects to do with criminal justice represent its moral stand as well as its core moral values (Kemshall, 2003). As such, it is these same values that are geared towards and intended to forge a harmonious trend within these societies through prior protection of people from any undue harm. For these reasons, criminal justice theories have gone ahead to advance proposals that use of punishment is effective in deterring criminal activities by uprooting the criminal elements from society.
References
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., &Laufer, W. S. (2016). Criminology .
Bhui, H. S. (2009). Race and criminal justice . Los Angeles: SAGE.
Conklin, J. E. (2013). Criminology . Boston, Mass: Pearson.
Doherty, M. (2005). Criminology . London: Old Bailey.
Jones, S. (2017). Criminology .
Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice . Berkshire: Open University Press.
Marsh, I., Cochrane, J., & Melville, G. (2004). Criminal justice: An introduction to philosophies, theories, and practice . London: Routledge.
Newburn, T. (2017). Criminology . New York: Routledge.
Parmelee, M. (2011). Criminology . New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Digital Library.
Whitehead, P. (2017). Transforming probation: Social theories and the criminal justice system .
