Criminology

With the increasing complexity in crime and criminology, policy makers need to employ appropriate measures to detect and deter criminal behavior. Extensive research should be done to establish the relevance of classical criminology in modern social systems. This paper critically examines the application of classical school of criminology and its influence on the US constitution.

Classical criminology and its influence on the US constitution
The United States constitution is to a certain extend is influenced by the classical theories of criminology. In classical school of criminology, the philosophy was based on evidence that people freely choose to commit crime. Classical philosophers believed that human beings sought pleasure and avoided pain with a delicate balance and consideration of the benefits for each. In addition, classical theory was based on the timing and the punitive measures taken to deter crime. The classical school of thought emphasized on utilitarian philosophies in describing. As a result, the modern forms of penology were shaped hugely by the classical theories (Barak-Glantz and Johnson 1983).  Apparently, in writing the US constitution, it appears that there was a strong influence from the classical theories and philosophies.

The rational theory choice and the US constitution
It is imperative that offenders make conscious decisions and rational planning to commit crimes. Although it may not always be clear on what motivates criminals, classical criminologists suggest that the source of all criminal behavior is traced to rational causes. In this regard, the US constitution borrows from classical school of thought in designing deterrent measures. Notably, the enactment of punitive approaches is based on the classical understanding of the concept of proportionality. Under this concept it is evident that a heavy punishment for a petty crime may not deter recurrence of crime. The reverse is also true that it is counterproductive to instill a light punishment for a serious crime. The concept of proportionality is applied to the United States constitution when designing the penal code especially for rape, robbery and murder crimes. The idea is that if all the three crimes were punishable by death, then rapists will most certainly kill the victim to destroy evidence by eliminating witnesses.

US constitution Classical criminology and its influence on the Bill of Rights
Classical criminology theories by Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Benthan had a huge influence in shaping the US criminal justice system especially the concept of human rights and free will. A closer analysis of the Bill of Rights reveals that the content and spirit of the law borrows from the theoretical perspectives of classical criminology. It is notable that the social structural theory influenced the enactment of this section of the constitution based on the conflict theory (Eck and Julie 1997).

The escalation of crime in the US pushed policy makers to enact tough penalties. As a result, the prison population surged significantly although the rate of crime reduced marginally. Classical criminologists postulated that criminals with higher IQ may not be caught easily or they may destroy evidence. This theory shaped the liberal arguments on abortion and freedom as well as the influence on subsequent amendments on the constitution. However, modern criminology especially the positive school of thought and its deterministic approach advanced by Cesare Lombroso substantially affects the justice system. This approach replaced earlier theories of free will and rationality with the determinism ideals.

The theory traced criminal tendencies to biological predetermination. But this approach has faced opposition from different researchers.

Conclusion
Classical school of thought on criminology continues to exert its relevance in modern justice systems. In particular, the US constitution is one of the legal documents that borrow heavily from classical social theories and principles. In this regard, researchers need to refine classical principles and analyze their implications to modern social systems.

Jeremy Bentham was an English social reformer and utilitarian philosopher. His political and social reform campaigns, most especially the criminal law, were theoretically founded on the concept of utilitarianism, which gauges actions in accordance with their effects. Inspired by many philosophers, Bentham formulated an ethical theory rooted in a principally empiricist account of human nature. Although during Benthams lifetime his belief was chiefly unacknowledged, yet in later years the impact of his idea eventually became greater in view of the recognition of several new consequentialist followers.

Contributions to Contemporary Criminal Justice
Jeremy Bentham is primarily recognized today for his moral philosophy, particularly his concept of utilitarianism, which assesses actions according to their outcomes. Even though Bentham never practiced law, he did compose various philosophy of law and has spent most of his life promoting legal reform as well as evaluating a number of existing laws. Bentham critiqued numerous natural accounts of law, which pronounce, among others, that rights and liberty operate independently with government. In view of that, Bentham developed a principle of what is now popularly known as legal positivism (Sweet, 2008).

Bentham believed on the idea that law is not rooted in natural law but is a declaration that conveys the intention of the government. Therefore, Bentham advocates that even though a law commands morally evil or morally questionable actions, or is not derived from consent, yet it is the law and must be accepted by the society as such. Bentham all the same claims that good laws are indispensable to good government and indispensable to the social order. Thus, because of this principle the criminal justice system up till now is reverently acknowledging the importance of the roles played by the government and law, especially in achieving the interests of the community.

Benthams Idea of Model Prison  The Panopticon
In a time when the death penalty was enforced for unintentionally passing counterfeit money, or for thefts as small as 20, Bentham recommended a kind of penitentiary described the panopticon (Ross, 2005). The panopticon is a model prison where incarcerated individuals would be under supervision by concealed guards. He claimed that since prison guards cannot be seen by the prisoners they need not be on duty all the time, thus saving the government a great amount of resources. Unfortunately, however, the idea of the panopticon did not generate much interest to Czarina Catherine the Great of England despite the strong endorsement and great expense of Bentham (Sweet, 2008).

Concept of Utilitarianism
In Benthams 1780 written work entitled Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he formulated the principle of utility wherein he claimed that an action is commendable only in so far as the action has a comprehensive tendency to uphold the paramount happiness of the greatest number of people (Utilitarianism, n.d.). Therefore, his concept of utilitarianism has basically two essential elements (1) the greatest good and (2) for the greatest number. In line with this explanation of utilitarianism, Bentham believes that law should be created so as to generate the paramount consequences to the greatest public.

Accordingly, Benthams concept of utilitarianism does nothing to safeguard individual rights as the concept disregards the dominant natural rights tradition. Nevertheless, Bentham did not entirely dismiss the concept of natural rights as he claimed several natural rights that all the same need to be respected. Nowadays, Benthams concept still offers a valid perspective in the criminal justice because unsystematic application of natural right is immensely confusing as it empowers people to assert on whatever things they desire. As a result, natural right would eliminate the right in general because of the idea that one persons right is not another persons right. Alarmingly, if every person had such freedom, the consequence would be absolute disorder.

In general, morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which morals are applied (Corpuz, 127). In short, ethics point to general rules of behavior expected by the group. In order to fully understand the difference between morals and ethics, let us consider the case of a criminal defense lawyer. Personally, the lawyer finds murder immoral and unacceptable. However, ethics demand that the accused be defended as rigorously as possible, even to the extent that the lawyer knows that his client is guilty and that a freed client would lead to more crime. Ethics must supersede personal morals for the greater good of preserving a justice system. In this case, the accused is given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Let us consider another example. Company ethics often play against personal morality. Employees are forced to choose between a demanding and consuming work ethic and family obligations. An employee with good morals may be charged of violating company ethics. A person who follows company ethics may have bad morals.

Epistemologically, ethics is related to the philosophy behind a moral outcome (Corpuz, 62). In order to determine acceptable and unacceptable behavior within a specific situation, ethical behavior must be defined. This term may also refer to understanding and adopting moral values within the home that should be defined. It is often related to values adhered to in the immediate social, political, and economic environment.

There are different types of ethics and their application varies from one situation to another. Normative ethics is the notion behind what declares an option as right or wrong is defined. Descriptive ethics considers a situation as a choice made in the presence of relevant moral agents. Here, the concepts of aesthetic and pure reason are examined. Applied ethics analyzes the success or failure of the application of ethical theory to common situations.

Morality refers to an adopted rule of conduct within a social environment and a set of conventional rules for what is right or wrong. The conceptions for what is morally right or wrong change over time and adopt new meanings. In a sense, morality is related to ethics. The former is abstract in understanding, while the latter is defined in the form of written code. Morality, in short, addresses the ethical aspects on the moral outcome of a particular situation.

Moral codes define what is appropriate and expected. They are defined through codes of authority. According to Aristotle, morality is synonymous with good life (Aristotle, 22). It is both an end and a means to achieving the ideal good life. Hence, moral codes are based on systems of values that have been tried and tested. Some moral codes are religious in nature such as the Eightfold Path of Buddhism and the Ten Commandments.

In summary, morals define individual character while ethics dictate the working of a social, legal, or political system. As Immanuel Kant argued

What separates morality from ethics is focus. Morals pervade individual personality. Ethics is more or less a summary of accepted rules of behavior  rules which are based from accepted notions of right or wrong. In essence, morality is universal within a specified context while ethics is universally defined from varied forms of behavior. However, the difference between the two is only arbitrary (174).

CSI of Glass and Light is a short video pertaining how glass can help investigators reconstruct the crime scene. It also informs how crucial glass evidence can lead to the perpetrator. The video also tell how glass is analyzed, the different kind of glass studied, comparison of glass fragments and glass fractures that greatly help in crime scene investigation.

Analysis of glass starts when there is a sign of a broken glass. This usually happens during breaking and entering of the perpetrator. This pieces of glasses are usually scattered and possibly be caught in the perpetrators clothing. If glass evidence is found in the clothing of the suspect, this is brought in the crime lab also with the pieces of glass at the crime scene. These materials are then compared by studying its physical properties such as density and refractive index.

There are three general types of glasses that are studied in CSI. The ordinary window glass or glass bottle which are common type of glass in relation with criminal investigation. The second type is the laminated glasses that are typically used as wind shield of vehicles. The third type is the tampered glasses which are usually prepared to withstand fracturing so when it shatters it will not form sharp edges that may hurt individuals.

Comparison of glass fragment is a huge help when linking the perpetrator to the crime scene. When the crime involves breaking of glass and there are pieces of glass that are found in the possession of the perpetrator, this pieces are examined in the crime lab with the broken glass at the crime scene where the density and refractive index characteristics are compared. When these pieces matched, it may lead to the real perpetrator of a certain crime.

Analyzing glass fractures also helps forensic analyst to reconstruct the crime scene. Understanding glass fractures and the direction of the impact that made it can determine what kind of incidence happened, for example, if a bullet is fired at the window, glass fracture can reveal whether the bullet came inside or outside the scene.

Examining broken glass is a huge help when it comes to crime scene investigation. It can expose or reveal the perpetrator and it can also aid forensic analyst reconstructing the crime scene. Broken glass is one of the most important evidence that a crime scene can provide.

Criminology research has been an integral part of providing relevant practitioners with significant information on the topic of criminal desistance. Apart from addressing this aspect, it allows for keen studies of issues considered instrumental in the field of criminology. As many researchers embark on such endeavors, they aim to discover new insights or even confirm notions which are already in existence. The question remains though on indeed how effective these studies are in fulfilling their presumed objectives. This paper seeks to provide a critical appraisal of such a study playing close attention to its presentation and validity.

Research studies on crime desistance are often hampered by existing incoherence of definitions, measurements and theoretical frameworks. Therefore, it is imperative to select an article which is not obscured by this factor. Hunt et al (2009) present such an article and as opposed to other articles, it addressed a rather rarely researched aspect of crime desistance. The prospects of discovering a new angle to criminal desistance among gang members made the article an enjoyable read. This is especially so because previous research and public opinion has often portrayed gang members as less likely to be influenced by fatherhood. More often than not, male gang members identify themselves with more masculine roles and are likely to consider fatherhood as such. With a closer look at the research contents, this article was quite appealing and as earlier mentioned it assured one of improved knowledge of the subject after evaluating it. From the research, it was evident that women played a big role in the turning point of the gang member fathers. Consequently, a desire emerges for wanting to gain an in-depth grasp of the opinions of the women in the lives of the gang members and form relations and more insight on the impact of fatherhood on crime desistance.

Background
This article displays an impeccable interest in an area which has not been adamantly researched before. Even as criminology researchers study criminal desistance, they have failed to engage gangs in their research. More so, their concentration on criminal activities results to sidelining other aspects of gang members lives. Hunt et al (2009) recognize this existing gap and seeks to bridge it. This article reviews a background of previous research on criminal desistance. This information refers to criminologists perspectives on crime desistance and the implication of turning points. They acknowledge previous research and its failure to address current gang affiliations and instead concentrate on past gangs from the early 90s. It is in this light that they establish a need for research on current gangs where past ideologies have been replaced by modern tendencies. Although limited, the literature does provide ample justification for their interest in fatherhood among gang members. The authors aim at exploring fatherhood among gang members and its role as a potential turning point for these offenders. In addition, they have revealed possible theoretical frameworks for understanding and unraveling the life courses of gang members and the implication of fatherhood on their life trajectories.

As they aim to understand how fatherhood shapes gang members life trajectories, the authors target a wide ranged audience in their research. The audience is a combination of students, academicians, legal and correctional practitioners. Students will deem this article informative and as a basis for further study and interest on the subject. This will similarly apply to academicians who can actively participate in instigating further or alternative research. As for practitioners, they are provided with the knowledge that fatherhood presents a window for implementing any intervention measures. However, interest is also bound to emerge from other non criminologists and students in other fields of study especially those dealing with social work practice.

Research Methodology
Hunt et al (2009) apply qualitative research as their overall research methodology. Indeed qualitative research is quite appropriate for this sort of research especially as it aimed to interpret subjective experiences of research participants. Prior to this research there existed vast research on the aspect of criminal desistance whose methodology was quantitatively oriented. While quantitative research may be vital in developing research statistics, it does not allow critical understanding of the subject. Noaks and Wincup (2004, p.11) depict that qualitative research is crucial in criminological research because it has the capacity to research on elements of crime which are unrecorded. In such a study, the issue of fatherhood and its impacts on gang members, life trajectories, crime desistance and turning point are elements which can be known from the subjective narration of the target group. Furthermore, this method would complement the quantitative research which has been conducted on the same topic. It was clear to the authors that this research was addressing a new angle to the subject of crime desistance and in their decision to conduct qualitative research they were able to appreciate the views of gang members and their contribution in developing intervention frameworks.

Despite the fact that their choices of research design were appropriate in addressing the research aims, the authors fail to provide a detailed account of the data collection and analysis process. From the article, it is impossible to understand how the sample was selected and exactly what procedures were undertaken. Sampling is an important part of research as it focuses on the central players of the research. Their mention of the use of a non random sampling method indicates that the research was subjectively directed at studying specific types of people. This allowed for stratified sampling which enabled them to include participants from various ethnic backgrounds. Consequently, this opportunistic turn made it possible for comparative studies on the issue of fatherhood across cultures. This method of sampling may have decreased the researchs validity as opposed to the use of random sampling which emphasizes on objectives and as Bryman (2001, p.145) argues is often a valid and reliable alternative. However, the use of community informants in verifying respondents claims was influential in increasing validity.

The article does state their use of interviews as a data collection method. This method was a well informed choice as it fit the aims of the research and the qualitative research methodology. Despite this, information given on the interviews is limited to just the main topics addressed and the length of sessions. It is crucial to state the procedures for drafting interview questions and also detailing the specific questions. The same applies to explaining the form of relationships which existed between the interviewers and respondents, an element which was not addressed by the article. This allows room for analyzing any other factors which may have contributed to the respondents choice of response which greatly affects the research outcomes. Even though the data collected was in a way which served the overall purpose of the research, there was no indication of rigorous data analysis. The use of both primary and secondary data is evident in the article, with most of the research conducted through the use of primary data. Primary data with a combined use of literature sources further authenticates the research.

A significant part of research which was completely ignored in the article is the ethical considerations of the research methodology and implications. Unfortunately, the article does not indicate whether the respondents were well informed on the various aspects of the research and their involvement. There are no observable measures for consent or even the acknowledgement of any arising issues during the data collection process. It is crucial for the research to display how any claims for infringement of confidentiality of informed consent were handled. If these issues were absent, then how did this impact on the research Bell (2007, p.45) asserts that it is vital to provide clear information to the research group on the researchers intentions. Therefore, agreements need to be made and their credibility authenticated prior to the commencement of the research.

Relevance of the Research Article
Right from the beginning of the article, it is clear that the authors are aware of the contribution their research will make on current perceptions in the field of criminology. There endeavor to supplement previous research on crime desistance portends their will to offer further insight on the said topic. Thus throughout the article, they give credit to their findings by comparing previous assumptions of some issues. Hunt et al (2009, p.313), compares the evidence that non custodial fathers are motivated by the need for role modeling with earlier claims made on the dismissal of the notion. This article continuously seeks to contend and affirm claims on the subject further increasing its relevance. From their findings, the articles is keen to acknowledge that other practitioners can use apply them into other fields of practice. Practitioners seeking to provide intervention measures for the rehabilitation of such groups of people benefit from the knowledge of the appropriate time for implementing such strategies.

Conclusions and Reference List
The article comes to the conclusions that indeed fatherhood though indirectly, affects the trends of crime desistance. In fatherhood, most gang members find an avenue for change and for embracing a new identity. The implications of this new identity are what largely determine how gang members are to live. While others find themselves taking a complete turnaround from their criminal behaviors others are influenced by other challenges. These challenges include the difficulties of getting legal employment and knifing off gang affiliations. There is ample evidence to support the possibilities of fatherhood influencing criminal desistance or other features which aid in the gradual process of criminal desistance. In an effort to influence the opinions of other researchers, the article has made use of critical criminology research above the qualitative methodology used. As Davies et al (2001, p.175) argues, criminology as a part of the tools of control in modern societies should be able to provide critical relations of research subjects in the social context. This impeccable, critical relation of research findings to previous literature has also made the conclusions credible.

The reference materials used in the article are impressively up to date with journal articles from the year prior to publication. Literature dating back to the 1980s is limited and also relevant in addressing the research topic. Furthermore, the article has utilized a wide range of books and journal articles which are peer reviewed and of a scholarly nature. In spite of this, there is no evidence of online resources apart from public documents. This however does not impede the efficiency of the article. All in all, the article has succeeded in fulfilling the research objectives and while its research methodology tactics are questionable, Hunt et al (2009) have produced a valuable resource for criminologists.

Lombroso used physiognomic attributes to tell criminals from law abiding people. Lombroso classified criminals into born criminals, insane criminals, and criminaloids.  The only acceptable category of criminals is the insane criminal. Individuals suffering from disorders including epilepsy, or who suffered abuse at a young age at the hands of their parents, or guardians can, in maturity, be driven by their condition to commit crimes they may not have committed had they not suffered from these conditions.

An insane criminal permanently or temporarily loses the power of free will and can break the law during such moments. Psychiatrist tests are thus recommended in cases where the sanity of the criminal is in doubt.

Beccarias classical theory still finds much application in todays justice and law-making systems. Unlike Lombros, Beccaria argued that people had the power of free will and rational behaviour. An efficient justice system was required to discourage crime. Beccaria stated that the government had the right to punish law-breakers. However, punishment had to be commensurate with the crime committed and harsh or arbitrary punishments were inappropriate.

Another aspect of Beccarias theory applied in the modern justice system is his proposition that clear laws were to be set by legislators who could not judge law-breakers. This ensures that neither legislators nor judges twist the law to hurt others.

Beccarios classical arguments in criminology and Lombrosos positivist arguments are still noticeable in the American criminal justice system today. The classical school views men as rational individuals endowed with free will and crime an intentional act that must be punished accordingly.

The classical proportional punishment doctrine enjoyed popularity before the 1900s, but was tempered down over the years due to increasing acceptance of the positivist argument which argues that the behavior of criminals can be explained through science and that certain social and biological characteristics push people toward criminality. Progressive views regarding human rights and social inequality have also made the purely classical view obsolete. In contemporary American society, the main ideological foundation of criminal law is still the classical school but positivist influence has gained ground in the sentencing process and the policy framework of the corrections system.

Parole and indeterminate sentence are reforms inspired by positivist thought, encouraging criminals  rehabilitation and restoration to society. Reforms on sentencing have been largely initiated by states because state governments are responsible for the prison system. Mental health organizations are also guided by the positivist doctrine the same goes for juvenile justice. While states have predominantly ventured on rehabilitative justice than proportional punishment, they vary because such policy changes bear heavy financial burden.