Essay Paper - Edited 1
Essay Paper - Edited 1
Essay Paper - Edited 1
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor
Course
Date
1) Criminology Theory
(a) Self- control Theory: Criminology theory are theories that map directly onto legal
doctrines, breach of duty, and causation. They help people gain understanding about
corruption and criminal justice. They include self-control theory and routine activities
theory. Self-control philosophy is also called the universal theory of crime. The
Theory highlights that individual are not inherently felonious or associated with crime.
Individuals vary in how they have established self-control and join the controls in their
According to Gottfredson, they realize that delinquency can only occur when the
Inclination for crime matches with a chance to do so. The Inclination of unlawful
life. Lack of self-discipline occurs when parenthoods fail to sufficiently teach their
offspring. Individuals who have established sufficient self-discipline will find it easier
to resist desires to commit crimes. Individuals who lack self-discipline tend to struggle
for cash without doing work, sex without dating, and vengeance without court delays.
The self-control theory tries to explain all forms of crimes. Self-discipline is the key
that guards the individual from engaging in criminal activities. Lack of self-control
(b) Routine Activity Theory: Routine activity's philosophy expounds that lawbreaker
can choose whether or not to bind with the law. This is based on their access to an
appropriate target and their occurrence. It narrates the design of offending the
everyday designs of social communication. It also explains that crime is usual and
only depends on the accessible chances to offend. If the opportunity presents itself,
people can commit the crime. It works on the assumption that delinquency can be
committed by everyone who has the chance. It states that individuals choose to be
victim-based by not associating themselves with places where crime can be easily
admission to an appropriate target and their occurrence. Cohen and Felson developed
the routine activities theory. It focuses on three key things. Potential lawbreaker, a
suitable aim, and the absence of a capable custodian. He further explains that these
must come together for criminal activity to occur. One of the primary criticisms of the
routine activity theory is that it relies on the assumption that offenders are balanced in
their decision-making. The theory makes an assumption that any person can commit
crimes as long the opportunities present itself. It is true that any person is a potential
2) Legal Theory
a) Legal Positivism: Legal Theory denotes theoretical education of the law. It is a very
crucial subject in the study of law. It institutes philosophies and the form of rules that
are enforceable in the account of law. The philosophy is essential because it aids the
exerciser in understanding the ecosphere, they are living in. Legal Theory majorly
concerns what is happening outside the courts and what is within the courts. It
empowers the lawyers to confront the bias in our legal system. Legal Positivism this of
the leading theories of the nature of law. It states that existence and law content
depend on social facts. The approach helps understand and interpret the law rooted in
Jurisprudence. It helps explain disintegrating law as a separate field from the other
fields, such as ethical and social concerns. According to John Austin, he tries to
divorce law from other subjective elements such as ethics and social responsibility.
Legal Positivism has a basic foundation principle on which it is founded; the law is
knowledge by a human autonomous. The law is distinct from ethics and has no moral
attachments whatever. The author gives an elaborate highlight that Law is distinct
from the ethics. He tries to separate law from the personal and the social ethics. Law
b) Judicial Review of legislation: The study of law should be intentional definitely and
not normatively; this will help avoid a lot of unrealistic assumptions. The study of law
is separate from the historical analysis. The key emphasis is that the legal system is
self-sufficient, and when it comes to making decisions, it does not have to rely upon
social concerns; or people's behavior. Judicial review of legislation is the ability of the
court to declare a legislative act in violation of the constitution. It is also known as the
Court appeal. The primary purpose of this Theory is to determine the legitimacy of the
cats of the executive and the legislative branches. In the case where the court ruled the
cases unfairly, it has the power to declare that constitutionally invalid. That helps to
establish justice in the courts of law. That law is practical and essential. It protects the
persons against state authority and ensures that administration, the public, and other
bodies are held answerable. Executive bodies are vital because they help to make the
law. If the conduct by the court is unreasonable and not satisfying, it will open room
for judicial review. The law has provided the remedy for it is called judicial review.
Therefore, the government or administrators must obey the law and have the authority
in law for their decisions. If they make decisions unlawfully, they will be fully
accountable.
3) Ethics
distinguish what is morally right or wrong through the underlaid principles both
cannot fulfill every desire of everyone. The purpose of the system is to punish the evil
and ensure the crime are appropriate for their losses. Ethics is very important is it
helps provide both the accused and the victims with a balanced application. This study
will focus on accepting gifts and the noble cause of corruption. Accepting gifts, the
supremum court justice is generally permitted to accept gifts. Unlike other members of
the statehouse, they are not permitted to accept gifts. Accepting the gifts under certain
circumstances gifts are ethical. Accepting the gifts is justifiable when promoting
benefice principles and avoiding harm to particular clients. Gifts have suffered
grounds of contention because they may influence individual decisions. There are
some principles behind accepting gifts. First, you must consider your relationship.
They must be offered in a personal relationship when the employee's motivation is not
for official favor; a family member pays for the gift. The gift should less than $ 50 a
year from one source. The gifts are based on the outside relationship, such as travel
related to the job interview. Also, awards and honorary degrees are acceptable. Before
you accept the gift, you should accept whether it would lead a person with integrity to
question their integrity. According to the government rules, the gift is considered in
the face of the market value and not the street value. That helps the employees to
determine whether the gift is acceptable or not. The employees should consider
whether the employee's opportunity to purchase a ticket at face value and the street
where the colonels bend the rules to achieve the right for a specific result. It is the
moral commitment to make your world a safer place. That is the motivation why most
people join law enforcement agencies. The most common category of exploitation is
prostitution, illegal consumption, and illegal use of drugs. Apart from taking bribes,
there are forms of corruption such as nepotism, where the officials extend preferential
treatment to particular individuals. The favor may include access to a job or other
services. They may be closely related friends, family, or even associates. Corruption
has affected the members of society; many have been denied their rights and have
continued to suffer at the hands of the evil hands. They have allowed unethical
behavior to persist in our societies. Corruption has made our legal system to rot, and
corruption has become our day-to-day routine and culture. The leading cause of noble
democracy, low press freedom, and low economic freedom. Our society today has
been engraved in this deadly pestilence. Our freedom and justice have been swallowed
by this monster.
4) Juvenile system
transgress the law and are accused of breaking it. Children arrested and detained are
not given the protection they deserve but they are entitled to punishments like the
adults; they are charged with sentences. The Juvenile system is essential; it ensures
that children are not deprived of their rights. The Justice system is impended in stages;
waiver. Parens Patriae is a Latin word meaning the parent of the fatherland. The
judicial system law endows the intrinsic power of the government to defend the
children who are lawfully unable to act on their behalf. In the U.S., his law is applied
to protect mentally ill children. The supreme court is the supreme guardian of all
children. The administration of a state, temporary as Parens Patriae, can make choices
regarding the mentally ill children and cannot make decisions independently. The law
protects children's interests such as health, comfort, and welfare. Parens Patriae is used
to the people who cannot take themselves, especially the disabled and the children.
The scope has enlarged to incorporate not only children but also needy adults as well
as disabled members of the society. Hence, older adults are qualified to be entitled to
this kind of care by the government. An excellent example of the Parens Patriae is the
modern Juvenile when custody of the children is temporarily taken away from the
parents' care. The children are kept under the care of the court until it determines the
child's interest.
b) Breed v. Jones: The historic supreme court verdict extended the double threat clause
to fit the modification to juvenile court records. The U.S supreme court held a two-
fold threat practical to the Juvenile who had violated the law. According to the law,
risk attaches when the accused is tested before the experimenter of facts when the
juvenile court starts to hear the evidence. That case came as a result of the 17year old
adult being arrested for violating the law. After the adjudicatory finding, it was
revealed that the defendant had desecrated the unlawful statute and he was inadequate
for the Juvenile; he violated the double risk. He was put under the juvenile court of
hearing. The primary purpose was to determine whether he had committed a crime
whose consequences included the inherent and the deprivation of many years. Despite
taking his case to the superior courts, the respondent had been tried in the Juvenile
courts. It shows he had violated the policies of the double jeopardy. The respondent
was subject to two trials for the same offense. He faced the risk of marshaling his
resources against the state and heavy personal strain. There is no constitutional
protection against the second trial, and society's interest must justify it. Granting the
respondent constitutional protection does not eliminate the flexibility and informality
a) Week v. the United States: The officers are under limitations in exercising their
authority and expertise to protect the individuals, their households, and their
credentials against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the worth amendment,
this protection is granted to all people whether they have committed a crime or not. A
law enforcement officer arrested the defendant without a warrant at the Union of the
Kansas City, where an express company had employed him. The police went into the
week's house and having been informed by the neighbor where to fetch the key; they
broke into his house. They searched the house and took ownership of the various
documents and traineeships offered to the United States law officer. Later, the
marshals also went into the house and searched and carried away certain letters.
Neither the police nor Marshall had the warrant letters. The court denied defendant the
appeal to overpower the indication of the warrantless explorations of his room. The
Supreme Court took firm that the pieces of literature in question were reserved from
the defendant household by lawful officers, direct abuse of the constitutional human
rights. They returned to the court and gave the law court the right to return. The police
officers did not act under any claim of the federal authority regarding the unauthorized
seizure.
b) Mapp v. Ohio: This case was heard on 20 June 1961. It was an extreme case which
th
initiated in Cleveland. The United States Supreme law court, underneath the fourth
and the 14 legal amendments, unlawfully seized defendant the indication of state
th
unlawful test. It makes it illegal for the evidence, the law officers got into illegal ways
without authorization and this is a criminal test in a state law court. The high court
said that the evidence was seized illegally without the search authorization and thus
could not be used in a criminal suit. The law demands that police should have a valid
warrant before breaking into people premises. The case of the defendant was different
they stormed into his house, overpowered him and did vigorous research. They found
a bundle of pictures which they took to the court as a piece of evidence that he was a
criminal. The police revealed a trunk of images and detained Mapp. He was suspected
of possessing the pictures. The police colonels enforced their way into Dollree Mapp's
household without a suitable search permit. They had suspected that Mapp was a
bomber, and they commanded admission into his house. Mapp contended that the
police but they did not give in. He filed a case against such a violation of justice,
freedom and human rights. He accused the police of breaking the Fourth amendment’s
rights and took the petition to the Supreme Court that reigned in favor of Mapp.