It is a fact that younger people do more crime than those that are older. These younger people are developing a sense of identity and through this they begin to deviate and question societal norms. They are given restrictions from the law, their school and their parents which evidently creates a sense of curiosity amongst them. Through the social learning theory, Crime is a learned behavior and it must be observed in order to learn and do it. These younger people are influenced by a culture such as music or movies that promote crime. Through these cultures, they create in these younger people, definitions whereby they are then able to grasp these deviant behaviors. They then associate with peer groups whom appeal to their preconceived notions about the criminal activity. They can either feel positive, negative or neutral on these subject matters. Crimes such as theft, violence and drugs are most common with this age group. They feel that since it is promoted or glamorized in culture that it is okay that they imitate these behaviors. These younger people are very impressionable, and it is a fact that the brain doesn’t fully develop until the age of around 25. Therefore, a possible solution I suggest is that perhaps we as a society look at what is currently referred to as the, “legal age.” Since science says that the brain doesn’t fully develop until that age, it is only right that we perhaps consider to question the legal age. Perhaps it is necessary to keep certain parts of the legal age of 19 such as alcohol, cigarettes and driving. But I do question these young peoples ability to make sound legal judgements.
Older individuals, however, have been tied down to many commitments such as a job or their family therefore, they commit less crime. They have been through the process of maturational reform. But some of them do still partake in crime. Their crimes are usually white-collar crimes. These types of crimes are inaccessible to the younger demographic. I feel that there is a great inequity in the legal system. This inequity is evident in the fact that those whom are poor suffer more than those that are wealthy from penalty, sanctions or prison. I believe society should look at punishing based on a percentage scale so that we can be a society that is fair and equitable. Let’s say theft under 2000.00$ is punishable under the current legislation for 6 months of prison or a penalty of $2500.00. From the lens of the proposed scale we can then say that those are the minimum punishments but also we can look at the average individual’s income and then scale the punishment in such a way that it is the same percentage of penalty that the poor person has to pay as the wealthy person therefore, these people who commit crime are affected in the same way. This method is what originates from deterrence theory, if we as a society punish people based on an income percentage scale, we would definitely see less crime. Moreover, I feel the legal system condemns these people and treats them unfairly by giving them a criminal record for life. This is an aspect which should be looked at. It is not fair that they have to suffer the implications of their misjudgments for their entire life. People change throughout their life- time and this legislation is literally unreasonable. Perhaps they should consider changing it to something like 20 years but life for serious crimes.
We as students and Criminologist are limited in the action we would like to change in society. We need to be collaborating with various disciplines in order to be able to create the equitable society of the future. Our limitations prevent this from happening and we should work to change this.
No comments:
Post a Comment