Trait Social and Classical Theories on the Occurrence of Crimes

Criminological Perspectives: Sentencing and Criminology
The justice system in the United States has always incorporated the study of criminals in an attempt to reduce offenses in the country. Many theories are used in fostering our understanding as to why crimes occur in the society. However, the theories can be grouped into three main perspectives as a trait, the social, and the classical theories. The following study expounds the nature and occurrence of crimes in society by considering the three aspects.
Trait theories incorporate psychological and biological theories and are based on the argument that criminality is a product of abnormal physiological and psychological traits. The argument is that genetic and biological factors are to blame for criminal behavior and a person having the trait is more likely to commit a crime (Taylor, Walton, & Young, 2013). However, it is believed that people with such traits can be trained not to engage in crime although some are uncontrollable when committing the said crime.
Social theories include the structure theory and the process theory. Based on the social structure theory, economic position of the person is the cause of crime. In contrasts, the social process theory relies on the argument that criminality results from the interactions between people, processes, organizations, and institutions in the society (Taylor, Walton, & Young, 2013). In essence, people behave the way they do because of the environment surrounding them. Individuals in this category do not commit crime because of having certain traits but because of the need and the thought that crime is acceptable in the society. To some, crime is the only behavior they have ever known. One may engage in crime because of being disadvantaged in the society and lacking some things, he or she feels can be achieved if one engages in crime.
The third perspective is the classical one, which is common with choice theories. With this view, crime is considered as a function of a decision-making process, and the offender can look at the costs and benefits of the act before conducting it. The person taking part in the offense looks at the available options before committing and chooses to commit the offense.
Sentencing Models for Each Perspective
The best sentencing model for people with criminal traits is the determinate sentencing. Although the method is not the best in regards to deterrence, some factors might justify the appropriateness of dealing with criminals in this category (Taylor, Walton, & Young, 2013). For instance, the definitive sentence ensures the offender has enough time to be able to learn about ways that he or she can avoid the trait leading him or her to crime (Tonry, 2014). Similarly, determinate sentencing helps in protecting the society because they are aware of when the offender will be released and will be prepared to deal with the results.
Offenders falling in the social category would benefit a lot from the indeterminate model of sentencing. The offenders analyzed to engage in crime due to social issues must learn how to fit into the society (Tonry, 2014). Research shows that offenders in this category can be trained to become better citizens, which means they should be carefully observed when in prison for elements of reform and ability to avoid crime in future (Zhang, Zhang, & Vaughn, 2014). The board should look for signs of the offender learning or acquire the skills of coping with the environment around them (Taylor, Walton, & Young, 2013). In case it is determined that the offender has reformed, they should be returned to the society where further rehabilitation should take place. However, there is a risk of destroying the incentive to change if the offender is imprisoned for long periods.
Offenders who fall under the classical category are the most vulnerable in sentencing as deterrence depends on the individual’s attitude (Akers, 2013). There are those who may benefit from the indeterminate model, as they are educated on how to make choices and to analyze the available choices before committing an offense. Incarcerating such individuals for a long period would not help their reform process. The indeterminate sentencing model is tailored to the crime and the individual (Tonry, 2014). The focus on the crime and the attitude of the individual allows the offender to return to the society effectively once he or she has developed the skills to make the right choices. On the other hand, there are those who can only benefit from the determinate model (Zhang, Zhang, & Vaughn, 2014). Therefore, any choice that the offender makes is consequential, and he or she is aware before committing a crime. The punishment expected for the offense should act as a form of deterrence to the offenders.
Sentencing Models and Deterrence
The best sentencing model to deter crime is the indeterminate sentencing model as it works in most of the theoretical perspectives of crime (Tonry, 2014). In this case, the judge states a range of time to be served without mainly focusing on the date the offender should be released. For example, after one is found guilty of an offense, he or she may be sentenced to serve twenty years to forty-five years in jail but with a possibility of parole after some time (Akers, 2013). Besides, the judge will not make any comment on a possible day that the offender can be released. Decisions on the parole date are left for the parole board that works closely with the inmate and the prison system to assess the progress of the offender and determines the possible parole date (Zhang, Zhang, & Vaughn, 2014). A committee is appointed once a person has been sentenced to serve in prison with the mandate to keep track on the offender’s progress towards reform.
However, the decision to grant parole does not only depend on the offender alone, but the board has to consider other factors in the process (Tonry, 2014). The board considers the recommendations by the judge, the criminal history of the offender, the time already spent in prison, the impact of the release of the victims and the societal safety. The willingness of the offender to participate in rehabilitation programs is also considered (Akers, 2013). Overall, the programs ensure that dangerous criminals do not return to the society if they are not willing to reform.
Normally, the board is best placed to decide on the offender as they spend much of their time analyzing his or her progress in prison. Indeterminate sentencing models also ensure criminals who have reformed return to the society early, which deters them from engaging in crime after learning how to consider the consequences. The only problem with this model is the issue of biases in granting parole (Akers, 2013).
Conclusion
Several theories have been formulated to foster our understating on why crimes occur in the society. These theories fall under the trait, the social and the classical perspectives. The three perspectives assert that crime comes from traits, social status or decisions made by the offender. Sentencing the three aspects requires analysis to ensure deterrence. Overall, the indeterminate model might work well determinate one, and the justice system is expected to make the right decisions based on the characteristic of the offender.


References
Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological Theories: Introduction and evaluation. Routledge.
Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (2013). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. Routledge.
Tonry, M. (2014). Remodeling American Sentencing: A Ten?Step Blueprint for Moving Past Mass Incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(4), 503-533.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Vaughn, M. S. (2014). Indeterminate and determinate sentencing models: a state-specific analysis of their effects on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 60(5), 693-715.