SCHOLAR: AGE AS A CORRELATE

Crime can be defined as illegal acts. When looking at Crime it is necessary to look at the variables of crime. I will be looking at the variable of, “age,” and I will provide explanations to how it is connected to crime. Moreover, I will attempt to explain its significance in a society. I will then conclude with limitations from a Criminological lens.
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.

SCHOLAR: CRIME & JUSTICE

Crime is an issue in all societies which needs to be addressed. This issue has plagued humanity since the inception of the civilized world. For me, I associate crime with violence, stealing and drugs. The mentioned, I have observed in many ways throughout our society and in the media, all with varying amounts of severity. Crime affects people and through my analysis, I determined that crime is really all about not having enough of something. As an example, a wealthy person who decides that he or she should neglect to declare all income on his or her income tax, so that he/ she may avoid the taxation of the government. This is tax evasion and in this situation, the person is wealthy however, it is his/ her perception of lack which evidently resulted in the crime. Perhaps this individual avoided the tax because he/ she needed to purchase something with the money. This is therefore still a problem of scarcity. Another example could be a man and a women are dating. However, the women get’s into an argument with the man, evidently resulting in an assault. These people are lacking something, they lack consensus with one another and they feel they need this consensus because they want to be able to do something. Therefore, their lack in consensus also is reflected in their lack of action which is hence preventing each one of them from accomplishing their individual intent/ goal/ purpose. As you can see from this example, a lack in one place will result in a lack in another which will result in some generally individually perceived unfavorable situation, in this case it was assault. Even when it comes to the usage of drugs or even discrimination. Some examples of lack for the former can be boredom or social support and for the latter a lack of amusement or perhaps lack of compassion. In the case of discrimination, I would like to delve into how this example acts as a scale. I will focus on compassion. As compassion is reduced the anger will increase, therefore each of these emotions are directly related. And the same can be said for the lack of amusement and boredom. This is what I know about crime and it comes from various observations throughout my life.

Now that we have taken a look at crime, lets explore briefly the concept of justice. This is a term that I feel really emerged as a result of government. Government was created so that order in a geographic location will or shall be maintained. This so called, “order,” is really consensus. Once again, the lack or scarcity thereof will result in crime. Thus, I can say, based on my analysis that justice seeks to rectify this perceived lack amongst its citizens and itself. This is done through actions such as law and legislation. The lack between people, I learned through school, are managed through discipline via fines, prison or sanction. The lack in the government itself are managed through actions such as taxation, negotiation or war. To me, justice means to protect the public and at the same time itself from anything that may impair it.

I learned in school about the question of deviance. This is a widely used concept to explain crime however, I would like to point out its flaw and it is this, it does not take into account the reason for the action, it only looks at the society. Although this established way may have merit, I feel that it really does not get to the root of the actual problem, which is lack. The only reason people do deviant behavior is the fact that he or she is really lacking something. Thus, I can say that perhaps if we as a society look at both factors of from the stated method, I feel we could increase progress in this subject matter. Therefore, in both cases, crime and justice, I can conclude the elements of their justification as follows- situation, perception, lack and action.

MENS RIGHTS ACTIVISTS VS FEMINISTS

INQUISITIVE: HOW TO IMMIGRATE

BOOK REVIEW "POINTS OF ENTRY" RE IMMIGRATION

AI & JOBS

ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND GREEN HOUSE EMISSIONS