Corrections Purposes of Punishment

Prisons as correctional institutions were an establishment of the 19th century and was predicted by may that as a correctional institution the prison facility was not going to thrive for long. However, even as we cross into the 21st century, the prison has continued to be part of the criminal justice system despite the failure to comprehensively address the functions and purposes that were the basis for its inception. The major question then arises on how the institution has managed to survive the challenges of the previous and the current century.

One fascinating aspects of correctional component regarding criminal justice system can be found in the prison institution which was established way back in the 19th century. Despite many experts predicting that the prison institution would decline during the 20the century, the institution has continued to thrive even in the 21st century. Prisons were introduced as correctional tools to the criminal offenders and have continued to serve the same purpose in the 21st century even in the wake of other options. In general, correction encompasses secure detention facilities including prisons and jails, but it also includes the personnel and the different programs offered to the offenders. Such programs includes probation, parole, rehabilitation, counseling, restorative justice and drug and alcohol therapy (Reynolds, 2010, para 2). In a nutshell the corrections are part of the criminal justice system that serve to separate the criminals from the society through the provision of housing and programs to the offenders convicted of criminal behavior thereby facilitating the loss of freedom for the offender. Apart from the death penalty, imprisonment is regarded as the most serious form of punishment that a free society may condemn an individual for committing a crime. This paper will look at the reasons that have resulted in the survival of imprisonment as a correctional tool despite the prediction of its failure by experts of the past centuries.

Prisons in the US
The very first true American prison was established in Walnut Street Philadelphia in the year 1791 by the Quakers with three objectives which included ensuring public security, reforming prisoners, and enhancing humanity to those members of the society who were unhappy (Smith,  Dickey, 1999). Education was introduced in the prison in the year 1798 and has since been part of the prison system in the US leading to the controversy surrounding the prison system regarding the purpose they were meant to serve. The debate arises on the issue of rehabilitation versus punishment. According to a report prepared by Richard J. Coley and Paul E. Barton entitled Locked Up and Locked Out An Educational Perspective on the US Prison Population, a significant reduction has been recorded in the state and federal spending on correctional education programs especially in the 1980s and the 1990s. In 1994, the Congress passed a legislation prohibiting the inmates from receiving the Pell Grants and thus de-funding post-secondary education to the prisoners (Coley  Barton, 2006).

The prison population has always been on the increase with a reported 700 increase in the population between the years 1970 and 2005. According to a report by the Pew Charitable Trust entitled Public Safety, Public Spending Forecasting Americas Prison Population 2007-2011, the increase of the inmate population is far from over. The report predicts that both the state and federal prison population shall increase by approximately 200,000 inmates come 2011 which will in effect raise the US prison census to over 1.5 million inmates. Incarceration levels are projected to continue with the upward trend to reach the rate of 550 incidences for every 100,000 or rather one in every 182 Americans (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006).

The prisons have traditionally been dominated by the males but a closer look at the statistics reveals that the women population is steadily rising. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts report, the women inmates are projected to grow by 16 by the year 2011 compared to 12 increase for the male population. The report also established that some regions andor states have higher general growth rates in the prison population. For instance, in the West, Midwest, and the South, the growth in the population is expected to be on the rise by double digits between the years 2006 and 2011with the West expected to record an 18 increase (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006). The table below shows prison population growth rates in ten States

10 Highest-Growth States
(By percent increase)
Montana 41Arizona 35Alaska 34Idaho 34Vermont 33Colorado 31Washington 28Wyoming 27Nevada 27Utah 25Source Pew Charitable Trusts, (2006).

Punishment as a correctional means can not be reduced to a single meaning since it is considered as a societal establishment that embodies and condenses variety of issues. There is need for one to explore the various dynamics and the forces of punishment in order to come up with a multifaceted picture of meaning and the action upon which it functions (Smith,  Dickey, 1999). Punishment in this case is considered as a legal procedure for which offenders of criminal law are predestined and endorsed to. The process involves interlink between the processes of law making, conviction, sentencing, and the administration of penalties (Sycamnias, 2010, para 8). Though legal punishment serves various roles, its fundamental aim is to reduce andor contain criminal behavior in the society. However, some theorists have refuted the assertion that punishment controls crime with the argument that penalty does not serve this end and therefore there is need to look at the other explanation of the scenario. To Emile Durkheim, if a transgression was not pathological then retribution is not capable of penalizing it (Berman,  Saxbe, 2010).

Despite being a delimited legal process, punishments existence and operation has always depended on a wide range of social issues both historical and sociological. For instance, according to Sycamnias
Modern prisons presuppose definite architectural forms, security devices, disciplinary technologies, and developed regimes which organize time and space - as well as the social means to finance, construct and administer such complex organizations. And as recent work has shown, specific forms of punishment are also dependent for their support upon less obvious social and historical circumstances including political discourses and specific forms of knowledge, legal, moral, and cultural categories, and specific patterns of psychic organization or sensibility. It is a product of tradition as much as present policy hence the need for a developmental as well as functional perspective in the understanding of penal institutions (Sycamnias, 2010, para 9).

It through the review of the retribution in comparison to the historical backdrop of the different structures of livelihood that a good understanding of the informal logic that underpins the penal practice. Punishment like any other institution has to interact with environment to form the mutual construction and configuration of elements in the social world (Sycamnias, 2010).

Trend in the Prisons
The prison population is set to increase and this shows that the institution will stay with us for yet unknown period of time. The main reasons that attribute to the increase in the prison population can be said to be the general population growth and increasing rates of crime. To the policy makers, the prison still remain at least in the public view as the most appropriate punishment that can be meted out on certain type of offences.  There is a misconception based on logic that the criminal activities in the society will be reduced when more individuals are held up in prison. In contrast however, no apparent cause and effect relationship has been established between the two variables. The subject matter on whether imprisonment really impacts on the crime rates can not be resolved by simple arithmetic as it requires some social policy calculus. The central issue has been the relationship between the effectiveness and cost of the prisons. The federal spending on the corrections has shot to over 50 billion from a about 10 billion in 1980s yet repetitive imprisonment has continued to be witnessed with more than half of the inmates finding their way back in prison within three years of their release (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006).

Traditionally, punishment is usually meted to serve two functions which include desertion and utilitarian. With the desertion or retribution, punishment the criminals deserve to be held responsible for their activities and punishment need to be commensurate to the crime. In retribution, punishment is seen as deserved to be meted to the wrongdoers. On the other hand, the utilitarian aspect of the punishment is justified upon accomplishing some other objectives including crime control. Utilitarian therefore regards deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation as the best forms of punishment (Stanford University, 2009).

The prison debate
The current punishment model is responsible for having created its own inevitability and preserving its statusquo. Different ways of punishing have been taken for granted and this has contributed to the reluctance of deep thinking about punishment. The prisons as the main institution for punishment have provided a convenient description of criminality, and the subsequent penalties. Prisons have therefore been sanctioned at least in principle, leaving detailed matters to be settled by experts and administrators in specialized institutions that are set to serve the purpose-the courts. Since they respected for the decisions they make, the courts have created their own basis of truth and are designed in a manner that no one dares question their authority (Berman  Saxbe, 2010). The existence of the penal system has worked to reinforce the status quo and no one may suggest other possible alternatives to the problems. People have been made to believe that the penal system and the corresponding institutions just like any other establishments are founded on principle as opposed to nature (Sycamnias, 2010).

What people have failed to appreciate is the fact that institutions and their regimes are subject to challenge especially when they fail to serve the purpose that they were designed for. Despite the fact that prisons are institutions of the 19th century, there is a general doubt about the current penal system. This was witnessed towards the end of the 20th century due to the increasing cases of crimes in the 1960s.  During this time, apart from the high crime rates there was general prison instability along with the collapse in faith in the rehabilitation ideal combined to undermine confidence in penal progress and the inevitability of penal reform (Sycamnias, 2010, para 3). The penal system no longer seems to hold the rehabilitative values and ideologies that were the basis of its formation in high esteem. This has led to the systems conventional wisdom being irrational, dysfunctional, and counter-productive thus becoming a chronic social issue more similar to the crime that the system was supposed to handle (Pratt  Clark, 2005).

The prisons have raised numerous questions in regard to their ability and efficiency in controlling crime. Nevertheless, the prisons have continued to survive even in the 21st century and many claim that prisons have been able to survive due to their quasi-independent life that puts them in a position to overcome the vast substantiation in regard to their societal dysfunctional abilities. This includes the implementation of probation with relatively less force, the issue of fines, and the implementation of community corrections among other survival means.

Making Sense of the Criminal Justice System

Evaluating and analyzing the world from a broader and deeper perspective allows us to know that the world is not a fair place. There does not occur any one-sided thing in fact contradictions do prevail here for instance, where there is good there is bad, honesty dishonesty, beauty ugliness, truth falsehood, and so on. Similarly, people do not only act in a way that is considered to be good or valuable to the society, but there are also rule-breakers who can be categorized under the names of criminals, murderers, thieves, and rapists. Evil flourishes when it is not stopped or apposite measures are not taken to thwart it, hence there are also some measures that are usually adapted to punish the criminals and make it a lesson for others not to commit crime. One old and most common type of punishment is imprisonment. The paper would discuss the history of prison, need and purposes of prison, arguments for and against the abolishment of prison, followed by the conclusion.

Looking back to the history of prison, in 16th and 17th century it was considered to be a place where the criminals were held temporarily before their trial or other form of punishment. Men, women, children, murderers, all used to be in the same prison before their further trial or proceedings. Those prisons were poorly maintained and many prisoners died due to diseases or fever that overwhelmed them. Whereas, in the 18th century, imprisonment with hard labor was considered to be a suitable punishment for the criminals, followed by the 19th century where capital punishment was seen as an alternative and addition to the imprisonment that suits best for the offenders (, 2010).
The 20th century proved to be the era in which the development of prison took place. Separate prisons were introduced along with different types of prisons for different offenders. Moreover, many private organizations took interest in forming, funding, and running the prisons.

Need for Prisons
This part of essay would elaborate on the need and necessity that is there behind the punishment of offenders. But first, there are some characteristics and statistics that need to be considered for better understanding of the need of prisons these days. According to ABS, the statistics for the prisoner population in Australia show that there are 93 prisoners are male which is 14 times higher than that of females. Average age for the prisoners is around 31 to 32 years, where male prisoners were involved in assault, robbery and sex and females were involved in drug offences, fraud, and robbery.

Around 16 of the prisoners are passing the sentence for less than a year, 23 of two to five years, and 22 of five to ten years. Those who have committed a murder usually faced around 19 years of sentence in the prison. The statistics profile shows that the males and females are imprisoned for different number of years and young male who commit violent offences usually face long-term imprisonment. Another major finding was that around 80 to 90 percent of the prisoners had no coping skills and dont possess the ability to easily manage and form a strategy to control themselves and organize their lives. The question arises here is that why and for what reasons are these people being punished for, poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, disorganized life, or all of these Now lets focus on the reasons that justify this question.

The mid 19th century carried a sense of new prison as an institution that was formed for the rehabilitation and rescuing the criminals instead of only punishing them. Later it became the place for punishment for serious offenders and the offenders actually realized that they would have to face incarceration if they commit any crime or offence. Before that, the punishment was much less physical, which means that there was flogging, mutilation, or death for the criminals for changing their attitudes.

There are some interpretations that have been developed by the historian and sociologists regarding the fact that why imprisonment is assumed to be a well-known place in contemporary punishment.  According to Marxists, the prison arose with the introduction of industrial capitalism. The prisons were formed to control the lower and working class in several situations, for instance, controlling their acts of violence, theft, robbery, or assault when there is industrial unrest, low wages, unemployment, or economic crises.

According to a French theorist, Foucault, stated that the prisons were just like a mirror of power relationships that prevail in the society. In other words, the prisons are the means to develop and maintain the discipline, control, and supervision. He didnt believe in the purpose of rehabilitation that was supposed to be provided through prisons in fact, the roles of prisons were to identify, categorize, and separate the people from the whole population.

Moreover, there are also some theorists who have proposed several other roles that are possessed by the prisons. First, control the people or prisoners by debilitating them and punishing them. Another reason is of rehabilitating them and indulging them in re-socializing. And finally the prisons help in providing a broader symbolic purpose to control other people through the power of normal citizens. The main theme behind sending the offenders to the prison is that the trend of law and order asks us to do so. Some examples of contemporary themes for prisons include the sending of offenders to community corrections where they are bound to work for the community and provide services. This is considered to be an alternative of custodial corrections and also a humane and compassionate way of punishing the offenders.

Other purposes of prisons might include that since the prisoners are not allowed the access to facilities and peace that hey normally have, therefore, it compels him to shape his attitude due to which he committed the crime. Since women are sexually abused and experience much bitter life-time in the prison than men by not being provided with enough facilities and programs, therefore, their rehabilitation and medication becomes another purpose in order to relieve them from sickness and poor health  either mental or physical.

Arguments For and Against Abolishment of Prison
There are several perspectives for the abolishment of prisons that the Prison Abolitionists talk about. They think that imprisonment is an indefensible and morally liable punishment that should be abolished. These abolitionists believe in reconciliation and are not in favor of punishment. Present system goes after punishing and hurting the criminal no matter what has gone wrong with him, whereas, the abolitionists think in recovering the loss of both the criminal and as well as the victim. The favor minimal coercion or indulgence in the personal lives of people, but do care about providing the offenders and victims with services and care.

Abolitionists try comforting the prisoners by working with them but remaining non-members of the imprisonment system. They try reducing the psychological pressures that overwhelm the prisoners. Another perspective is that the abolitionists are like allies of the prisoners who do no act as traditional helpers (, n.d). They go after what can actually help and motivate the prisoners to get out of their worn-out, gloomy life and begin a new one with hope.

Abolitionists believe that there lies enough power with us that can easily help us to challenge and closing down the prison system. Specific policies and practices can be adapted by those who are powerful enough and can play their role in abolishing this prison system. They think that the crimes are committed due to the flaws present in the structure of society. They tend to indulge in bringing in the change in community and society, which would ameliorate the society and mitigate the criminal acts. Moreover, abolitionists say that short-term prison sentences have a poorer recidivism rate than community sentences (Herbert, 2008). All what is behind the shutting down of prison is the basic motif in which abolitionists believe in, and that is encouraging the freedom and justice for the prisoners (Berndt, 2003).

Whereas, on the other hand, the prisons should not be closed because they are the main source of punishment or detention where the offenders or criminals are brought to and are preceded with further trials and actions. If this main place is abandoned then the criminals would get some sort of encouragement and bravery in committing crimes and offences. Moreover, there isnt any one type of crime that is being done these days in fact there are many and cause different types of harms and effects that need to be treated the same way.

Therefore we can conclude that the system of imprisonment started from 16th century and got tougher and tougher with the passage of time. This system is still prevailing for the purpose of punishments and seems to be very attractive and effective to many of us. There are several purposes behind keeping the system going on, but abolitionists dont favor it and encourage abolishing the system.

Factors Determining if a Child is a Potential Offender

The prevalence of crime in our contemporary society has brought the need of devising ways through which crime can be prevented. In trying to curb these retrogressive trends that come in the name of crime, various criminologists have posed questions regarding the interventions being employed. One of these questions is if there is a possibility of predicting that a child could end up becoming an offender in the future. This question forms the basis of this discourse, where we shall take into account the various arguments propounded by scholars on this question and then draw a comprehensive conclusion on the same.

The underlying question in this discourse is if at all future behavior in a child can ever be determined and with what accuracy that can be achieved.  Previously, criminologists relied on the classical school of thought in studying crime and devising the policies and means to combat it. As pointed out by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the classical tradition generally explored the theory of human behavior and then zeroed in on the formulation of policy by the government to combat crime. And in restricting its view to crime, this school of thought missed out on many forms of behaviors that are in essence associated with criminal activities in terms of social reaction and are also identical to crime in terms of causation.

Today, the positivist school of thought has gone a long way in embracing the aspects of crime that the classical tradition had ignored. Cole and Smith (2006) take note of this when they argue that the positivist tradition, which began to gain currency in the mid eighteenth century, has swiftly replaced the classical school of thought. This is largely due to the fact that the positivist school of thought propounds the idea of the use of scientific methods to determine criminal activity.

This involves the incisive study of the mind, the body and the environment of the offender or rather a would-be offender. This has proved instrumental in revealing what motivates people to become offenders and the particular ways that they can be rehabilitated. Some of the central arguments of the positivist school of thought are that human behavior is by no means controlled by the free will but rather by the physical, mental and social factors. The theory further postulates that science has got the potential of unearthing the various causes of crime and even devising the treatment of deviants (Cole and Smith, 2006, 53).

Given the above arguments, we can conclude that there exists a possibility of determining if at all a child can become an offender in the future. Besides, a report by Faith and Service Technical Education Network (FASTEN), supports this by stating that there are many qualities that criminologists use to determine if someone, or a child in this case, is at a higher risk of committing crime in the future( HYPERLINK

These predicators, as the FASTEN report states, fall into two major categories, namely the static predictors and the dynamic predictors. One glaring characteristic of the static predicators is that they can hardly be changed by a would-be offender. These include factors like the criminal history of the family that the child comes from. On the other, the distinguishing feature of the dynamic predictors is that they are subject to change these include vices like lack of self-control andor ill temper ( HYPERLINK

In more specific terms these indicators that criminologist used to underscore the likelihood of a childs future involvement in crime are basically, either social andor biological in nature. Going by the definition provided by the FASTEN report most of the social causes fit the description of dynamic predicators, whereas the biological causes can safely be considered as the static predicators.

Arguably, the social predictors are a function of the developments in society. In the current world these developments are subject to the changes that technology has brought in human interactions. As the world shrinks into a social village, courtesy of the new media, cultures are amalgamating and sharply questioning some mores and values that were previously the cornerstones of morality and lawfulness. At the center of this transitional crisis is the family, which is if anything, the most crucial socialization institution in the society.

These changes are crucial in determining the future behaviors of children. For one, the family today is an endangered institution given the proliferation of single-parent families, separations and divorces. The children from such background are more prone to indulging in crime than are the children from stable family backgrounds. Garside (2009) concurs that it is possible to put a finger on the criminals of tomorrow on the child by merely looking at their social setting. He argues that some of the characteristics that such children bear are social in nature and they include factors like coming from a dysfunctional family or living in poverty stricken neighborhoods ( HYPERLINK

This fact is also supported by Morrison and Morrison (1995) who claim that as a result of the collapse of the family, children have been brought up through faulty socialization and this has exposed them to a tendency towards crime. Mostly, children from such families exhibit a lack of self-control and this is normally a product of their poor upbringing. Such children bear resentment towards life and their participation in crime is a statement of their frustration. (232)

By extension, this means that it is highly likely that a child will grow up to become violent due to what heshe had seen happen at home when there was a disagreement between hisher parent. Such a child could end up in prison for assaulting a colleague, for instance, after there was a disagreement between them. This is because shehe has grown up with the notion that violence is the shortest route towards getting hisher way in a matter.

 A report by KNOL (2009), titled Violence and Aggression, pours additional weight on the fact that the stability of a family is crucial in determining a childs future criminal tendencies. The report states that children learn how to act by copying the behaviors of adults, their peers, famous and fictional character, who they admire most. However, the people that child would most easily imitate are their parents.

For that reason, parents who abuse their children, either physically or sexually, are usually victims of such abuse while they young. In this way, abuse is thus handed down along the family line in a never-ending cycle and it does sometimes spills over to the society, when an abused children ends up molesting others in the neighborhood. In contrast to that, if the parents of a child are non-violent and of good moral standing, the child grows up to become like hisher parents, even though there are some exceptions in this case (KNOL, 2009).

 These social indictors are not only limited to the family. Often the society at large brings its force to bear on the character on an individual. For one, the new media has increased the level and intensity of interaction between people, across that globe. And in becoming a global village, almost all societies across the world have put much emphasis on individualism and creativity, thus enhancing human subjectivity. From this view point, we clearly understand how the virtual community has today become as real as the physical world around us and this has made social identities and reference groups to become a global phenomenon (Maguire, Morgan and Steiner, 2007, 104)

These social consequences of the changing world can invariably tell if a child is headed towards the offensive path. This could easily be brought out by checking on the childs associations, both at school and at home. This is true in the sense that a childs peer group is quite instrumental in determining how aggressive or violent they may eventually become. What the peer group does is to either enhance or vitiate a childs biological tendency towards violence. Some peer group might help the child to desist from violence these could be a group like the Boy Scouts. On the other hand, negative groups like children naughty gangs, can easily nurture a child to become violent (KNOL, 2009).

The frustration within which a child is brought up, in this case as a function of hisher society also tells a lot about the likelihood of their involvement in crime. In a 1941 study called, Frustration and Aggression An Experiment with Children, researcher exposed children a frustrating situation and recorded their equally aggressive response. They took a group of children into a room full of attractive toys that were blocked by a screen. The children only stood there, utterly frustrated that they could hardly play with the toys. Eventually, when they were allowed access to the toys, they kicked and shoved in a scramble for the toys (KNOL, 2009).

However, when another group of children was led into the same room and immediately allowed to access the toy without the frustration of waiting, the children showed no aggressiveness in choosing the toys for themselves. The study therefore concluded that even though frustration doesnt necessarily lead to aggression, it plays a bigger in producing anger and annoyance, which on piling up in a child they eventually make himher to become aggressive (NKOL, 2009).

The biological factors, or rather the static predicators also point towards a future offender in a child. For quite some time, the use of biological means to explain criminal behavior were generally ignored and even condemned as being inclined towards racism. This was because this approach often blamed the prevalence of criminal activities to be a function of the marginalized people, for instance in the United State these included the African American and the Latinos (Cole and Smith, 2006, 54).

However, after the Second World War the study of biological predictors for criminal activities began to attract renewed interest. It was recognized that biological factors do predispose some people into involving themselves in criminal activities. These biological predictors such as the genetic make-up, body type and the intelligence quotient was deemed to far outweigh the social factors that propel people into criminal activities (Cole and Smith, 2006, 54).

This fact is demonstrated by the finding of the research titled Iowa Adoption Studies, which focused analyzing the behavior of children after they had been taken by parent who did not conceive them. Since these children had had different genes from the parents who now took care of them, the researchers had the opportunity to unveil to what extent the role of nurture plays in raising people to become non-aggressive (KNOL, 2009).

The study reached the conclusion that the stability of the adopting parent is of no significance in comparison to that of the biological parents of the child. This means that if the biological parents of a child are unstable, the child grows up to become unstable even if hisher adoption parents are otherwise.  On the other hand, the children whose parents are biologically stable grow up to become stable whether or not their adopted homes provided them with a stable environment (KNOL, 2009).

Contemporary research has moved beyond focusing on the genes as providing the basis for behavior that can lead to crime they now explore the specific physical and environmental factors that affect the human body, hence becoming a potential influence on their behavior. For instance, such researches have demonstrated that a person who sustains certain kinds of head injuries or rather suffers from tumors in particular locations of the brain can experience the impairment that as a result affect their knowledge, perception and behavior. This can also be used as a predicator in children, particularly those growing up in crime-prone residents (Cole and Smith, 2006, 54).

Other people have abnormal levels of certain chemicals in their brains, which cause them to become hyperactive, irritable and even involve themselves in risk taking behaviors. Worth noting is that these behaviors are even manifest in children and if such conditions are diagnosed and treatment is offered through the prescription of  drugs required to counteract the chemical imbalance, then the situation can be arrested (Cole and Smith , 2006,55).

Far from that, people who suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), children inclusive, are prone to aggressive and impulsive behavior that lead to the violation of criminal laws such as substance abuse and assault. Worse still, their problem may be compounded in case they come from families that face acute economic challenges, where they lack the opportunity for a diagnosis, treatment and supervision of their conditions (Cole and Smith, 2006, 55).

The abovementioned views from various scholars points towards the evidence that indeed the future behavior of a child can be determined, whether criminal or not, from the biological and sociological factors that define their lives. The identification of these factors in children is crucial in helping them map their own future this is essential particularly in cases where a child is exposed to predictors that could lead himher to become a criminal. In such cases, appropriate measures can be taken, hence ridding our society off a potential offender.


The ICC is poised to handle the case of the Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odthiambo and Dominic Ongwen (ICC-0204-0105) who are accused of leading the Lords Resistance Army (ICC, 2010). The LRA has conducted a murderous campaign against the Ugandan government in the north of the country, abducted women and children and destroyed towns and villages. They are accused of conducting rape of female victims and enslaving others as wives. LRA operatives have recruited children into their armies and forced hem to train as soldiers.

The President of Uganda referred the LRA case to the ICC for investigation and prosecution of the movements leadership. The Ugandan government also issued an amnesty to former rebels to turn in their weapons and become reintegrated into society. These measures were aimed at minimizing potential conflicts between former rebels and local people.   Since the government is not prosecuting the case, all parties would expect a fair judgment from the ICC and those found guilty will be sentenced accordingly. This intervention will reduce the likelihood of reprisals by supporters of the LRA command in the event their leaders face the maximum penalty.

The case of the prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (ICC-0205-0109), the Sudanese president over crimes against humanity committed in the Darfur region is likely to harm the peace process between the North and South (ICC, 2010). Bashir is accused of supporting genocidal acts in the area and failing to use his influence to stop the killings. His arrest and trial at The Hague could set off a series of events that could lead to the outbreak of civil war.  Owing to increased tensions, aggrieved northerners may commit genocidal acts against vulnerable southerners as retribution for what they perceive to be the southerners role in weakening the presidents international standing.

In conclusion, true peace and reconciliation can only take place when the parties to the conflict believe that they were dealt with fairly. Where one party feels that ICC actions are biased against them, the prospect of war will loom large. It is imperative that the ICC prosecutor exercises wisdom in deciding who should face the court lest such arrests contribute to full scale war and more human suffering.

Exclusionary Rule Evaluation

Respect for human rights is an important practice in any nation. This is the reason behind the formulation of the exclusionary rule. According to the provisions of the American constitution, the right to privacy is defined as a fundamental right for all American citizens (Jackson, 1996). This is well established in a number of amendments such as the fourth, fifth and the fourteenth amendments. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by law enforcement agents (Street Law and the Supreme Court Society, 2002). The Fifth Amendment on the other hand protects the right to be free from self-incrimination (Jackson, 1996).

These provisions by the fourth and fifth amendments, coupled with the fourteenth amendment provisions for due process are the source of the exclusionary rule (Jackson, 1996). The rule serves the purpose of preventing unfair interference of the liberty of Americans by the government. Nevertheless, the rule does not serve to protect defendants against evidence given by private persons and is limited to the defendant only, not a third party (Jackson, 1996). The rule has the benefit of ensuring the effective enforcement of the constitutional provision on rights to privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, and the due process by the United States criminal justice system (Dripps, 2001).

Despite these benefits, critics of the exclusionary rule find it to be a negation to the function of law enforcement in realizing sustainable justice for all in the community. This is because critics argue that the rule acts as a loophole for use by some criminals to escape justice (Hendrie, 1997). However, the exclusionary rule must remain as it serves to protect the liberty rights of the American citizens against misuse of power by the government.

This paper is a discussion about the exclusionary rule. The author gives a discussion on the rationale, importance and exceptions of the exclusionary rule. The author also talks about the costs and benefits and alternative remedies to the rule.

The rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary Rule
The formulation of the exclusionary rule as a court made law necessitated by the need to enforce the constitutional provisions on liberty rights. According to the supreme court of American, only the exclusionary rule could sufficiently safeguard American from infringement of the provisions of the fourth amendment by the government (Street Law and the Supreme Court Society, 2002). The rule was constructed by the Supreme Court based on its constitutional interpretation in the 1914 case of Weeks v. United States.

According to the ruling on Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court found it a violation of the fourth amendments provision on unreasonable search and seizure by the government (Dripps, 2001). This is because the prosecution provided evidence against Weeks, which was not in the search warrant. This prompted the court to enforce the citizens right against unwarranted search through the exclusionary rule (Dripps, 2001).  Just to be noted, the rule was further modified based on the due process provisions of the fourteenth amendment to apply to both to federal and state courts (Hendrie, 1997).

The sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prohibit misuse of power by government officials in keeping law and order in the society. By the law, an individuals right to privacy as provided for in the first amendment is protected. The rule ensures that law enforcement agents respect the fourth amendments provision prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure (Hendrie, 1997).

Also, the exclusionary rule can be seen to prohibit the infringement of the right to be free from self-incrimination due to its dictates on admissibility of prosecution evidence (Jackson, 1996).  Still, the due process and probable cause is an important tool in ensuring fairness and justice to all. To effect these provisions, the exclusionary rule makes it a mandatory requirement for law enforcement to proof probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant (Jackson, 1996).

The exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule has three main exceptions in the fight against crime in the American society. One exception is the inevitable discovery doctrine (Hendrie, 1997). The inevitable discovery doctrine is applicable when prosecution evidence is seized in two varied ways with only one being physical and illegal (Dripps, 2001). The doctrine states if second evidence was based on hypothetical seizure that could not be illegal, the evidence is admissible in court. Nevertheless, the doctrine dictates for sufficient proof by the prosecution that the evidence could not have been located by without using hypothetical means (Dripps, 2001).

The second exception is the independent source doctrine. Here evidence is located in two different but physical ways with the later way being legal (Hendrie, 1997). The legal implication of this exception is that law enforcement can request for the issuance of a new search warrant after they have illegally found important evidence against a suspect.

The third exception of the exclusionary rule is Good Faith. This dictates for admissibility of evidence acquired by law enforcement by using an errant warrant (Jackson, 1996). The law does not regard it misconduct by police officers who use such a warrant to collect evidence against a suspect. This makes search warrant issued by the court to be legally biding provided they were issued upon proof of probable cause.

The costs and benefits of the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is an important legal tool for protecting Americans against governments infringement of their rights as found in the first, fourth fifth and fourteenth amendments (Jackson, 1996). It protects defendants against infringement of their right to privacy by prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure by the government. The rule is also crucial in enforcing the constitutional provisions on the right to be free from self-incrimination and respect for the due process in dealing with criminology in the community (Dripps, 20110).

Another benefit of the exclusionary rule is that its serves to ensure justice and fair treatment by prohibiting misconduct by government officials in fighting crime (Jackson, 1996). This is because it acts as a check to mitigate misuse of powers by the government. Just to be cited is the fact that the rule of law can only be realized by ensuring that the executive powers are not used to compromise the provisions of the constitution. Therefore, exclusionary rule is crucial in fighting malicious collecting of prosecution by law enforcement.

Nevertheless, critics of the exclusionary rule see it as a loophole for allowing criminal offenders to escape justice (Hedrie, 1997). Ideally, law enforcement is legally charged with the duty of detecting and combating any form of criminal act in the community. with the exclusionary rule, law enforcement are bound to collect evidence as dictated for in the search warrant thus compromising their ability to more effectively combat criminology. The rule thus makes criminal suspect free of crime not based on the accuracy of the evidence provided but based on how the evidence is collected.

Alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule has a number of remedies. First, the constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by government. This means that government officers can be subject to prosecution for breaching this law as well as paying the victims for damages (Hendrie, 1997). This is because the victim can use the civil right statute provisions to file a suit against police officers. Still, according to the rules and regulations governing the police force, a law enforcement officer found guilty of conducting unreasonable search and seizure is subjected to disciplinary measures by police disciplinary department board (Dripps, 2001).

The tort law is another remedy to the exclusionary rule. The victim of unreasonable search and seizure can successfully take a tort action against law enforcement officials (Jackson, 1996). The courts of tort will function to provide for compensation for the victim. Such are quite effective for illegal arrests and infringement of the right to privacy of a defendant by government officials. All these legal provisions for protecting American citizens against infringement of theirs rights to privacy, unreasonable search and seizure and free from self-incrimination can effective remedy the exclusionary rule (Jackson, 1996).

The construction of exclusionary rule was prompted by the need to more effective enforce the liberty rights of the American citizens. The rule ensures that law enforcement is based on the provisions of the fourth amendment for mandating a search warrant upon proof of probable cause (Dripps, 2001). Therefore, the rule protects both the right to privacy and the due process provisions of the constitution.

There are some remedies to the rule such as tort action, prosecution of government officers or subjecting them to disciplinary acts upon proof of guiltiness of conducting unreasonable search and seizure (Jackson, 1996). However, the rule remains a controversy in that it is seen as a tool for compromising the war on crime. This is because it can allow criminals escape justice based on evidence legalities rather than accuracy.

The Poor Should they give up or there is hope

Absolutely yes The rapid increase in serious crime rates in Victoria perpetuated by alcohol and the extraordinary increase knife related assaults clearly demonstrate that we have degenerated into anomie. In fact, Durkheim has explicitly underlined that during periods of socio-economic upheaval societal structures break down culminating in rampant increase in crimes. His theory postulates that if financial crises exacerbate anomy it is not because of poverty, it is because of disturbances of collective order. Hence during disturbances of social equilibrium men become disposed to self destruction as indicated by the alcohol related assaults in Victoria.

Our state of anomie is further revealed by lack of moral force which in turn guides the moral needs as people have resorted to indiscriminate assault as documented by the Alfred Emergency Department. If these individuals respected the regulations, they could then be submissive to collective authority hence they could be bound by social regulations hence desist from morally unacceptable behaviors which are swiftly rising by the day. However, this state of anomie is an indication that our society has been disturbed and now we are in the middle of a crisis which will explode unless the regulatory influence is exercised. If these assaults are left unchecked then we are going to witness unprecedented rates of suicide as upset individuals must struggle to readjust to new social classifications. Society cannot adjust them instantaneously to new lives as they no longer know the limits to their own desires, thus worsening our state of deregulation or anomy.

A Social Constructionist Approach to Corporate Wrongdoing From Durkheim to Reiman

Contrary to public opinions or ostensible beliefs, the fact remains that crime is derivative.  Specifically, crime is nothing more than a human conception of acts and behaviors which violate particular social and moral norms in ways that can threaten social cohesion and social solidarity.  Crime is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon, such as a tornado or a flowers blooming, and while their may be some genetic factors that predispose certain individuals to commit acts defined as criminal in social contexts, crime is not natural in any sense of the word.  Sociologists and philosophically-oriented researchers and commentators such as Durkheim and Reiman argue that as socially-constructed conceptualizations both crime and the law which seeks to define and regulate crime ought to recognize the derivative nature of these social constructions, the power of human societies to create better and more just social constructions in order to promote a greater type of theoretical consistency, and  contradictions in certain types of social constructions which should be remedied in order to create more morally consistent and just societies.  The criminal laws approach to corporate wrongdoing is one such contradiction more particularly, societies through their definitions of crime have consistently allowed corporations to engage in types of wrongdoing which for individuals engaging in the same type of wrongdoing would be labeled criminal and punished quite severely.  This essay will argue that a social constructionist perspective, as it has evolved from the early work of Durkheim to the contemporary contributions made by Reiman, justifies holding corporations criminally responsible for acts and behaviors in the same way as individuals if the criminal law is to maintain its ethical legitimacy and moral authority.

Sociological Approaches to Crime and Wrongdoing  A Social Construction Approach
As an initial matter, it is useful and perhaps necessary to place Reimans social construction orientation within the larger sociological context within which it originated.  This, in turn, requires a brief understanding of Durkheims groundbreaking sociological approach to crime and punishment.  Most importantly, Durkheim was one of the first scholars to create an analytical framework within which crime and law could be viewed as deriving from sociological factors and from which paradigms such as Reimans social construction could arise and evolve.  Specifically, Durkheim created his sociological approach to deviance and crime by choosing law as an index of the type of solidarity exhibited by a society. Since social solidarity does not lend itself to exact observation, nor indeed to measurement, it is necessary to take an external index which symbolizes it HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod95744505(Jones, 1981, p. 1011).

Because desirable conditions such as social solidarity and social cohesion cannot be measured empirically, thus defeating the purpose of objective research and analysis, Durkheim relied on the existence of law as the most objective social manifestation of social norms and moral values.  Deviance and the attribution of culpability, whether in a civil or criminal law context, could thereby be traced to the social and moral values giving rise to particular types of laws and the attendant legal consequences.  Durkheim, in short, defined crime in particular as a type of socially-constructed factual reality and it is based upon this fundamental framework that Reiman explores a variety of contemporary issues and debates related to crime and punishment.  One of Reimans main premises is that one cannot perfectly equate morality and the law more specifically, because law is created or constructed by social forces with a variety of competing interests, there are many circumstances in which law reflects these competing social interests rather than any consistent type of underlying moral universe. Indeed, he argues rather unequivocally, for instance, that it is necessary to distinguish between committing a crime in the legal sense, meaning violating a criminal law, and committing a crime in the moral sense, meaning doing a moral wrong HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5030009749(Reiman, 2007, p. 4).  

Social rules and administrative structures, such as laws and the criminal administrative organizations, are created by a minority rather than a majority and this minority is typically an elite political group.  These elite political groups, whether at the state or federal level, are frequently and disproportionately influenced by individuals and groups which help them to gain their elite political status and to maintain their elite political status through campaign donations and other forms of assistance.  What arises is a social type of obligation to obey the law, in which many injustices occur, but not necessarily a moral obligation to obey the law.  This is ultimately grounded in Reimans firm and persuasively argued conviction that The state of nature is a mental construct, an imaginary place, and the agreement in it is an imaginary agreement. HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5030009749(Reiman, 2007, p. 7).  This divorce of the social reality of crime from morality and justice is clearly illustrated in the case of corporate wrongdoing and the criminal law.

Contemporary Corporate Wrongdoing Illustrated  Ford Pinto Case and Justice
Corporate wrongdoing, whether the result of negligence, reckless disregard, or deliberateness, too frequently occurs and is often treated as a much less serious matter than if it had been the result of an individuals actions or behaviors.  One excellent example, from a comparative perspective, is the infamous case of the Ford Pinto and its exploding year end that resulted in multiple deaths and more injuries.  Briefly speaking, Ford executives recognized that there was a design flaw in the new Pinto model and nevertheless decided to pursue production despite the recognition that this design flaw would likely lead to fatalities and injuries in very specific ways (Vaughan, 1998).  There was civil liability imposed, but Ford executives were exonerated with respect to criminal charges alleging wrongful death.  The question which arises in such circumstances, and which Reiman addresses, is why corporations are not criminally responsible when individuals would most likely be convicted of some degree of murder, sentenced to prison, and treated as socially undesireable criminals for the rest of their lives.  Parents in Florida, for example, were charged and convicted of manslaughter after their young daughter was killed in an automobile crash on the grounds that they failed to comply with the state of Floridas child seat law.  Even a comparative analysis of these respective cases, Ford executives escaping criminal liability and grieving parents being convicted of manslaughter, profoundly illustrates the social injustice of criminal laws designed to prevent death and injury.  The behavior of the Ford executives behavior was more deliberate the parents in Florida because they considered potential deaths as a cost of doing business whereas the parents never contemplated any injury to their child.  And yet, despite these clear moral differences, the wealth Ford Executives were exonerated and the poor parents in Florida were convicted.  This is neither just nor is it ethically defensible.  This disparity in the form of the administration of criminal justice is precisely the type of intellectual hypocrisy that Reiman is criticizing when arguing that as socially-constructed phenomenon criminal laws should adhere to uniform standards of justice and morality.

The main problem, from a social construction perspective, is that There are the unsavory or unethical but not illegal practices that cause harm to many, and there are the white-collar crimes which are either not punished or, if punished, only lightly so (Leighton and Reiman, p. 4).  The implication is that intelligent people and societies cannot rely on law to define morality or justice unless morality and justice are first used to create the law as the type of socially-constructed index which Durkheim hinted at and which, from a sociological perspective, Reiman has refined since Durkheims time.

In the final analysis, there can be no real argument that law is the manifestation of social processes and that is also the result of victories achieved through competitive socioeconomic debates and contests.  There is, despite residual references to medieval notions related to natural laws, nothing natural about crime, punishment, and law.  These are social facts, socially constructed, and morality and justice are too frequently sacrificed or neglected when law is articulated, implemented and enforced.  Corporate wrongdoing, as evidenced in the differential treatment accorded corporations in cases such as Pinto and individuals, demonstrates that Reiman is correct in identifying intellectual and social shortcomings while simultaneously pointing out solutions in the form of constructing laws from the ground-up rather than in the reverse direction which has been the preference of economic and political elites wary of being constrained by law.