Crime – Page 2

‘Crime affects the whole of society, not just the immediate victims.’ Discuss.

Society can be defined as small groups. It is not necessary to view society as a big world.
Barometer of safety and security has to be maintained in a society.
Constant media coverage can instil fear among people.
Society’s monitoring of the victims of crime affects attitudes and confidence in the justice system
The impact of crime depends whether it is localised or happens in the same neighbourhood
It could also depend on whether the victims are known family, friends or neighbours
Society can view victims with indifference, as a reality show as if it couldn’t happen to them

‘Convicted criminals lose their freedom and that is punishment enough.’ How far do you agree?

Discuss the purpose of punishment (eg deterrence and compensation) and prison (eg, incapacitation and rehabilitation)
Huge recidivist rates at the moment, so the punishment should get harsher
The general idea is that prevention is better than ‘cure’
The rights of victims need to be acknowledged and protected
The guilty need to undergo a radical social as well as psychological change
The public needs to feel protected
A violation of social rights should automatically dilute rights of the offender.

Punishment should fit the crime. To what extent do you agree?

To make the punishment fit the crime in today’s world is virtually impossible as there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes fair punishment for a crime. The judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly among societies. Countries are often concerned when their citizens are subjected to foreign laws considered barbaric by their own country. Countries beleaguered by specific crimes have tough laws to eradicate crimes common to their society. Views on crime and punishment are perpetually shifting. Advocates of human rights vilify any laws that are perceived to curb an individual’s rights. Many see harsh punishment as counterproductive and increasing calls are being made for countries to practice restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice.

While laws are the bedrock of all societies, each country is a sovereign entity and draws up its own laws and statutes based on religious codes, historical practices or its particular circumstances. Anyone who transgresses the law cannot claim ignorance and is beholden to obey the law or receive his just deserts. In theory, a penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the level of wrongdoing. In reality, a misdemeanour in one society can constitute a crime punishable by death in another. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has often been berated for stoning to death women convicted of adultery. In most societies, adultery is not a chargeable offence. In Singapore, the consumption of drugs is an offence unlike countries such as Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Thus fitting the punishment to the crime varies across countries.

A good fit between punishment and crime could be possible to a certain extent if a country has a robust judicial system where laws are carefully deliberated and there is a general consensus that the punishments are consistent with the nature of the crimes. The perpetrator should have access to adequate legal aid to ensure that all facets of the case are examined. Astute and impartial judges, beacons of justice and morality, must ensure that sentencing is fair based on the stipulated range of penalties prescribed for a particular offence. If it is felt that the punishment does not fit the crime, the wrongdoer has to recourse to make an appeal. In Singapore, the Supreme Court hears appeals from the High Court and State Courts. The Penal Code is revised from time to time to keep pace with social and political changes against a backdrop of increasing technological advancements that breed new and increasingly complex online crimes.

Fitting the punishment to the crime is also clearer in cases where an obvious infringement has been made. This is generally true for banal crimes which do not affect others or society directly. A person caught speeding, littering or shoplifting would normally accept the punishment considered fit by society. It can be difficult to mete out punishments for complex crimes which involve several parties with varying levels of complicity. Crimes against humanity such as the battering of a maid provoke the ire of the citizens who demand balefully that the perpetrators receive just punishment for their cruelty. In India where rape is rife, public outcry can influence the penalty handed down to the culprit. Animal rights groups belabour the fact that greater punishments ought to be exacted for cruelty to pets and animals. Crimes of passion which are not premeditated are particularly complex and fitting the punishment to the crime requires careful consideration.

The arbitrariness of fitting the punishment to the crime is increasingly obvious in a globalized world where the dissemination of world news takes place at a rapid pace. Crimes and their resultant punishments often provoke anger or ridicule from the online international community. While Singapore has rigorous legal systems and structures and is noted for its incorruptibility, it is often belittled for being a ‘fine’ city which imposes fines for littering, the sales of chewing gum, eating on the metro, smoking in non-designated areas and jaywalking. People mostly in the developed world are befuddled that flogging practised in ancient times, is still being practised in many Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. Many feel that such punishments are dehumanizing and do not fit the crime of any nature. Caning in countries such as Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia dates back to British colonial rule. The jail and caning of two young Germans for trespassing and spray-painting a metro train in Singapore received criticism from the online community. From Singapore’s standpoint, the sentence is not baseless. Given the size and fragility of its state, there can be no compromise on safety and security. A strong deterrent has to be set against trespassing and the defacement of property.

World norms are changing. Murderers are a bane in any society. While it would seem fair and fitting that a person who willfully takes the life of another is punished by forfeiting his own life, about a hundred countries have abolished the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment state baldly that many innocent people are executed due to unfair and discriminatory practices. Many criminals are from economically and socially backward sections of society and do not have access to good lawyers and a fair trial. We often read of lawyers who find loopholes in the law to exonerate their clients. Many bemoan the fact that there have been cases in countries, however, have retained the death penalty for drug trafficking to send a strong deterrent signal to would-be traffickers and protect its citizens from the ill effects of drug consumption. When Indonesia executed eight convicted drug traffickers in 2015, it provoked a backlash in Australia, Brazil, and Nigeria were seven of them hailed from.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that fitting punishment to a crime is both a Science and an Art and that it is not possible to have an exact fit. Judges and juries cannot baulk from the grave responsibility of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime as best as it can. Laws and punishments are necessary. Without them, there would be bedlam.

Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the government department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because, in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.

Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.

Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.

However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second-largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a “serious criminal” who runs brothels and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.

In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle-aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.

To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.

Should the death penalty be used to punish violent criminals?

The death penalty’s validity has been debated by many countries for decades. Out of 150 countries, about 80 of them have abolished the death penalty, as these countries often share the sentiment that it is a violation of human rights. Yet others maintain the view that it is necessary for violent criminals, such as murderers, to be put to death, for the good of society. I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals since the harm that they cause deserves a fitting punishment.

Firstly, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty in order to serve as a form of deterrence. By sentencing such criminals to death, it is a demonstration of the consequences of committing the crimes they did and highlighting the severity of their crimes. Thus, it discourages people in a country from thinking of committing similar crimes, or from committing them in the first place, thus reducing the possibility of people becoming victims of violent crimes. Additionally, it serves as a warning to foreigners who are visiting countries that enforce the death penalty to not commit crimes punishable by death in those countries, reducing the probability of foreigners hurting others within those countries. For example, Kho Jabing, a Malaysian man who killed a coworker in Singapore in 2010, was hanged in 2016 despite his Malaysian lawyers pleading for a life sentence instead of execution. Hence, it can be seen as a warning to citizens of other countries to refrain from committing such crimes in Singapore, and as a form of deterrence. Therefore, the death penalty ought to be used for punishing violent criminals.

Secondly, the death penalty for violent criminals can be seen as a form of justice, for the victims of violent crimes, as well as their families. Violent crimes such as murder (attempted murder and actual murder) and rape can cause lasting psychological damage – on victims who survived the violent crimes, and on the families of both living and deceased victims, severely reducing their quality of life and violating their human rights. The death penalty’s usage to punish violent criminals will often be of comfort to living victims and victims’ families, giving them hope that the one who brought so much pain and suffering will not get away scot-free. Humans are often vengeful by nature, and there is a sense of gratification in seeing these criminals get their ‘deserved’ comeuppance. For instance, in the case of Jeffery Dahmer, who murdered and sexually assaulted the corpses of his victims – all of which were young males, aged 14 to 28 – he was not sentenced to death, but instead jailed for life, greatly upsetting the families of his victims. In my opinion, he should have been punished via the death penalty for his senseless acts of violence; his jail term did not do justice for his victims. Thus the death penalty should indeed be used to punish violent criminals.

Human rights advocates, however, often argue that the death penalty, even when used on violent criminals, is a violation of the rights of such criminals. Since they are human, they are entitled to human rights, and the death penalty violates Article 3 of the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights – the right to live. Additionally, while most methods of execution are designed to be as quick and painless as possible, executions can often be botched, such as in the August 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, who shot and buried alive a 19-year-old girl (who eventually died) and raped her friend. Although he was to die via lethal injection, as sentenced by the court in the United States of America, he took 43 minutes to die as compared to the normal 2-3 minutes. This was because the first injection failed, while the second injection took over 16 tries due to the executioner being unable to insert the needle – which was the wrong size. As a result, Lockett suffered excruciating pain until death from the chemical coursing through his body, alongside the needle pricking him numerous times. This prolonging of his execution, albeit unintentional, was seen as a violation of Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that no one should be tortured. Thus it is often argued that no matter how violent and terrible the crimes were, such criminals should not be executed due to human rights and the possibility of them suffering from botched or prolonged executions.

Nevertheless, I hold my view that violent criminals should be punished by the death penalty since these criminals forfeited their human rights when they hurt others in their crimes. In the case of murderers, for example, since the murderers have taken the lives of others, violating the victims’ human rights in the process, they no longer have the right to be human in the first place. In a June 2016 survey in Singapore, conducted on 1,160 Singaporeans, over 80% approved the use of the death penalty, citing reasons such as the fact that those who commit violent crimes have given up their humanity as a key factor to them showing approval for the death penalty. Even with the possibility of the execution being accidentally prolonged due to mistake, it could be said that this is ‘karma’, since they have hurt others and made them suffer, their own deaths should be painful as well. Hence, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty for their inhumane actions even (and especially) if they suffer during the execution process.

It has also been argued that the death penalty gives no opportunity for these violent criminals to atone for their crimes, as it takes their lives away – if they were still living, they would be able to repent (if they were truly remorseful). Humans, having the ability to show mercy and compassion, should do so as often as possible, and using the death penalty, no matter how ‘justifiable’ due to the severity of the crimes, could possibly be considered ‘evil’.

While the argument that the taking away of the opportunity for atonement is true, it is also highly unlikely that someone who committed a violent crime would be remorseful – in many cases, their intent to inflict harm was present and thus they would not regret committing the crime. The death penalty can also be considered a ‘necessary evil’, in order to maintain the peace of a society. Since good governments have the responsibility to do what is right and beneficial for the country, using the death penalty to punish violent criminals would be necessary for the good of the majority. Hence I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals.

Not all violent crimes, in reality, are punishable by death. For instance, some sex crimes and domestic abuse are considered violent crimes, yet those convicted are not punished via the death penalty. As of now, the death penalty is often used on violent criminals only when their actions caused deaths, and even so, they may only get life sentences. All in all, I hope that it will be more recognised that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals and that it will be extended to crimes where severe violence has been carried out and the victims are still alive.

Young Offenders should be given a second chance. Do you agree?

In the world of today, the young are subjected to all sorts of influences, be it positive or negative. Friends, television programmes, movies and games inoculate the young with trends, attitudes and thinking. With the mind of the young still undergoing development, such influence affects their actions, and the fact that much of the content of the media consists of violence and crime, it is inevitable that the young commit offences. In recent times, the number of young offenders is on the rise and punishment is employed to reduce crime by young people. Should young offenders be given a second chance? I believe so for the most part.

First of all, these young offenders– first-time offenders no less– are but young individuals aged thirteen to nineteen. Their minds are still undergoing development and are not very capable of rational thinking. As such, they more than likely did not mean to commit their first crime. If they understood the situation and consequences, things will be very different. A study by the American Youth Foundation shows that at least two-thirds of all young first-time offenders committed their crime simply because they were either not thinking clearly, subjected to peer pressure or being unaware that it is a crime, to begin with; reasons displaying a lack of rational thinking. It is unjust to punish one when one was not thinking rationally or did not mean to commit the offence in the first place. It is the same as subjecting chastisement to a toddler for flaunting vulgarities. Simply put, it is not fair. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance as they are not very capable of rational thinking since their minds are still developing and it is unfair to punish them.

Secondly, by punishing them when their minds are still undergoing development, a scar will be etched into their minds. In this way, we are forcing them to link the committing of offences to pain and suffering. These methods are barbaric. We can not possibly employ methods we use on beasts of burden to young people. For instance, we whip horses to run faster and beat cows that leave the boundary designated by the farmer. These animals feel the pain and link their so-called “wrongdoings” to the abovementioned pain. Treating animals like this is bad enough; to do the same to a fellow human is reprehensible. Instead of punishing them on their first offence, counselling should be employed. Not only will they be fully aware of their crime and learn from it, but it is also humane. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance and not be blindly punished simply because they broke a law.

Thirdly, young offenders should be given a second chance as it is their first offence. By punishing them, we are refusing their right to fully comprehend the severity of their crime. By doing so, they are simply suffering although they do not know why, potentially leading them to a repeat offence, or even leading them to be recalcitrant offenders. The whole point of punishment is to prevent young offenders from repeating their crime. If the young offenders repeat their crime, the purpose of punishment is defeated. A study done by the Juvenile Court in Britain has shown that at least three-quarters of repeat offenders committed their crime a second time as they were punished on their first offence and were not entirely clear why thus spurring them to repeat the same offence a second time. Indeed, it is ludicrous to punish young offenders on their first offence. Instead, counselling should be employed as mentioned above. Only then will the young offender be completely aware of their wrongdoings and prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore, young offenders should be granted a second chance as punishing them on their first offence proves to be an ineffective way of preventing them from repeating their offence.

Still, it is not logical to let them be scot-free on their first offence. It really depends on the offence. Exonerating a teenage boy for committing murder is exorbitant. Therefore, they can only be granted a second chance if their crime is minor enough to warrant a chance, such as stealing or shoplifting. However, since most of the first-time offences are minor, it is logical to grant young offenders a second chance in general. Statistics by the Singapore Police Force shows that at least 2% of all crimes committed by young people are severe enough to warrant severe punishment, such as manslaughter or murder. Therefore, since such a small percentage of crimes committed by young people are severe, second chances should be granted to the first time, young offenders.

In conclusion, I believe that young offenders should be given a second chance for the most part as their minds are still undergoing development which undermines their ability to think rationally, it is their first offence, most of the crimes are minor, to begin with, it is only moral to use humane methods and it is their right to be fully aware of their crime and punishing them on their first offence is unjust. This second chance should be coupled with counselling so that they may be fully aware of the severity of their crime and prevent a repeat in history.