Liberal and conservative approaches to crime and justice in Canada

Crime and Justice DQ

Comparison and Contrast

Governments around the globe have adopted different approaches to combating crime and delivery of justice to their citizens. The issue of liberal and conservative approaches to crime and justice are more vivid in Canada. The Canadian government had earlier favored liberal approach before 2006 when the approach changed back to conservative due to the Conservative government taking over (Phillips 2012).

The two approaches differ due to their contrasting views of human nature, moral values nature and the cause of criminal activity. They also contrast on the treatment of the criminals due to their differences. Liberals are based on the belief that man is naturally good. Evidently, there is no absolute standard of morality to be taught or adhered to by the citizens. They claim that crime is a product of deprivation due to poverty, and the society is responsible for criminal behavior as they prove the society's failure in providing the necessary needs of the individual forcing them to commit a crime. They claim that these deficiencies corrupt the naturally good man (Phillips 2012).

In contrast to liberals' views, conservatives believe that man is born with the natural capacity for good and bad. The importance of absolute moral values gained through religious beliefs, teachings, and participation enhances the role of need family, schools, and churches ensuring that the same is promoted wholesomely. They claim that the lack of good morals being molded to an individual leads to the formation of individual with ill morals responsible for the crime. They further support their argument based on the individuals having the free will to choose right from wrong. Although the poor are deprived of their basic needs, it is the individual to choose whether to commit a crime or not (Phillips 2012).

The two approaches value the nature of man as good. However, the assumption of liberals ignoring the bad side of humans directed by poor societal values rather than just socio-economic conditions makes conservatives' argument more approachable in the real world.

Q2

The main targets

The war on drugs have seen many changes in laws but in all the laws, the war has mainly targeted the African-Americans with most of the arrests on drug charges affecting them more than any other race. The Hispanics are also targeted in the war leading to famous claims. The criminal justice system has been criticized for being biased and unjust and calls for the need to change tact. Although the laws have increased, there is a relatively minimum increase in the arrest of the drug peddlers and drug lords portraying that the rampant arrests are on those at the bottom of the drug hierarchy (Lakoff, 2010). This contributes less on the fight against drugs. In 1994, incarceration based on drugs was about one million but were about 1.5 million Americans by 2008 of which 0.5 million of the prisoners of drug offenses were Black Americans. Other statistics portray that one in five African-Americans has been imprisoned because of drug laws.

Sentencing

The 100:1 sentencing favored since 1986 claimed that people in possession of crack cocaine compared to trafficking powdered cocaine received similar sentencing. Ideally, if an individual had five grams of crack cocaine he would face the mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in federal prison whereas the one with 500 grams of powder cocaine would face the same sentence. The discriminatory law aimed at limiting the dominant crack cocaine at the time. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 cut the sentencing to the ration of 18:1 respectively. Other common laws state that being in possession of cocaine either crack or powder for the first time with no prior conviction subjects the individual to a maximum of one year in federal prison or a fine of $1,000 or both. In the case, the individual had prior convictions on any narcotics or cocaine the sentencing is two years in prison or a $2,500 fine or both (Lakoff, 2010).

Likelihood of winning the war on drugs

The war on drugs is a complex issue. With the current rules, the likelihood of winning it is low. Therefore, the government should focus on arresting the drug lords who are at the top of the hierarchy to ensure they end the drug supply. In conclusion, the laws implemented are discriminatory and aimed at protecting the key drug suppliers. It is a high time for the government adopted other ways of ending the drug supply and winning the war because the current laws only win the battles but fails in the war (Lakoff, 2010).

Q4

The Concept

The rampant increase of imprisonment even for small crimes has led to increment on the budget to maintain prisons to the highest and unimaginable rates. This makes it necessary for the criminal justice system to introduce probation and paroles without disrupting the security of the people. Probation is one of the main forms of community supervision that allows the defendant to maintain family, community and employment ties while under correctional supervision. The supervision restricts the defendant's liberties through monitoring. In contrast, parole is closely related to probation, as they are interdependent although in some cases. Parole is the earlier release from imprisonment based on the judgment by the probation supervisors or the prison officers that an inmate has transformed his or her behavior to warrant the earlier release. The individual may be released but closely supervised just as in probation (Neubauer, & Fradella, 2015).

Roles of Community in the Success or Failure of Probation and Parole Programs

Probation and parole are based on the ease and acceptance of the prisoners or criminals back into the society. Many of them are community-based to ensure that the criminal has low chances of creating havoc in society. The community is responsible for acting as independent supervisors of the criminal and helping the probation agencies in determining and rating the criminal's improvement. They should be welcoming rather than stereotyping the individuals under probation to make them feel accepted in the community. This will enable them to feel obliged to improve and become entirely free to serve and fit in the community that will lead to the success of the programs although this has not been the case as most people under probation are stereotyped and termed as law offenders who have got away from facing their sentences or punishment. They are mostly victimized and discriminated to the point they feel better in jail than in the society. The individuals are likely to commit a crime as either revenge or a ticket to prison where they are accepted or are comfortable. These roles if not discouraged lead to failures of the programs (Neubauer, & Fradella, 2015).

It is appropriate to focus on probation and parole programs to help limit the rampant imprisonment while enabling community integration that is important in helping individuals avoid crime. Besides, it is important for the community to be welcoming and easing the integration process for the success of the programs.