History and theories of criminal justice

Criminal Justice

History of Criminalities

The need to amend criminal procedures and justice has developed in Europe since 20th century. Several philosophers have come up with theories trying to explain how justice can be achieved in a much simpler way other than using the common law as a justice reference. The philosophers aim at minimizing crimes such as monarchy and feudalism. As much effort has been put, theories of various philosophers differ, such as Beccaria and Van Den Haag, with few similarities.

Similarities and differences between Beccaria and Van Den Haag's theories

Both philosophers acknowledge that every crime pays, with a more painful charge on a more severe crime. Both agreed that the ultimate price of crime is punishment, and no crime should go unpunished, with aim of reducing crime rates. Equality on crimes committed is a key concern to both parties, and that an individual is punished for a crime committed and not punished based on discrimination factors.

However, the two philosophers have great differences. Beccaria does not support capital punishment in case of a sever crimes made. He terms capital punishment as human brutality, and instead, he advocates for a rational punishment that aims at improving individual's status of crime rather than the "brutality" (Roth, 2010). He believed that individuals who commit crimes could undergo reform and correct the crime he or she once committed. Beccaria emphasized more on the use of extraditions, with no extra ordinary renditions, on administering justice. Beccaria believed that individual incitement of fear will keep anyone away from committing crime, with a severe crime facing more charges, which induced more fear to an individual who would wish to commit crime purposely. On the other hand, Van Der Haag advocated for capital punishment. He believed the no crime would go unpunished, with a more severe crime being subjected to capital punishment. Van believed that the only way to stop crime is by doing away with criminals totally, and that rehabilitation was of no help to offenders since it will have no impact on the reduction of crime rates.

Beccaria's theory has proven more appealing, since it offers a basis of justice for both minor and major crimes committed. Beccaria's theory does not support death as the ultimate of law offender, and gives second chances to individuals who learn from their mistakes. It incites fear depending on crime committed, gives severe punishment to a severe crime, and in turn, ends up being fairer as opposed to Van Der Haag's theory.

Three Strikes Legislation

Three strikes legislation is a law used to imply a repeated crime, more than twice, by the same individual. It implies that a successful or failed attempt of an in individual to commit the same crime for the second time faces greater liability than the first. The liability is greater with an increased attempt of the crime. This law mainly applies to violent offenders (Shute and Simester, 2002).

According to Beccaria's theory, three strikes legislation will aid in rehabilitation of a law offender. The legislation is friendlier to human, less brutal and focuses on how violent the crime is and serves the criminal rightfully. The policy will aid in cutting down any law offender who is willing to commit the same crime, which will end up forcing the offender to face more charges or longer imprisonment term.

The three core principles of Beccaria's theory include; people are free to choose their behaviors. Action taken by an individual in anger or not, are expressions of how an individual feels. For a person to commit crime willing fully, it depends on one's will. This principle supports three strikes legislation in that it advocates for action of any crime committed on purpose. Choices, controlled by fear are another core principle that advocates for fear inducement that will enable individuals keep away from crime. This principle supports three strikes legislation, since with a repetition of crime it comes with a severe judgment that enables first crime offenders fear and keep away from crime. Core principle of severity calls for a severe punishment on a violent crime and depending on the nature of crime. The theory supports three strikes legislation, since a repetition of violent crime faces severe charges than the first time (Siegel, 2010).

Criminal policy proposal

Criminal justice, over the years, has faced many challenges in administering proper justice. Drug and substance abuse and mental illness are examples of disorders that need to be corrected to minimize crime rates. Criminals who prove to be mentally ill or under the influence of drug or substance should be treated different from criminals who are upright and normal. To solve this problem, different administrative model to punish such criminals should be set up. Any individual under the influence of drug has mental impairment, and can proof to be difficult pass sentence on such a person. Research has shown that there is relationship between violent offences and personality disorders, which several number of personality traits, are associated with offences. Impaired and unimpaired mentally ill offenders should also fall under the category of psychiatric offenders, although research shows that four-fifths of impaired abusers are more violent than unimpaired abusers (Landsberg, 2002).

Criminals associated with psychiatric disorder are associated with excess aggressiveness and irresponsible conduct. Such criminals are referred as (psychiatric offenders) and their cases are given special treatment. To identify, such individuals are associated with three major features including; irresponsible behavior, arrogant and manipulative, and affective deficits. Drug ill courts and Mental Ill Act is an example of how psychiatric offenders should be treated whenever they offend (Davies and Beech, 2012).