Idea Of Chivalry And Double Jeopardy Criminology Essay

Idea Of Chivalry And Double Jeopardy Criminology Essay The purpose of the Criminal Justice System is to deliver justice to all, by protecting innocent members of the society, to punish and convict criminals and to provide help to them in an attempt to stop them offending; at least that is what the society expects of the Criminal Justice System. It is supposed to deliver justice in a fair manner regardless of gender. However much is written that suggests otherwise. Chivalry, believed by Pollak (1960) is a theory which claims that women are treated in a less harsh way by the courts and prisons because of their nature as women, which then distorts criminal statistics. However, Gregory Leonard (1982/83) disregard the chivalry factor as the cause of a gender gap in crime and Heidensohn (1985 cited in Jewkes and Letherby 2002 p.180) illustrates the theory of chivalry in a case reported in the Daily Mirror in January 1978 where a mother flogged her eight-year old son with a belt, gave him cold baths and forced him to stand naked for hours at night. The mother was jailed but later allowed to go freely because the courts said she needed to look after her other child. This case is a great illustration of how women are more favoured by the courts than men. This view can be seen as ideological and unsociological as it is based on female biology. Carmen (1983 cited in Jewkes and Letherby 2002 p.183) quotes sherrifs if she is a good mother we dont want to take her away. If shes not it doesnt really matter. This shows that the sentencing of a woman is based on her nurturing nature being of good standard or otherwise. A Home office study research 170, titled Understanding the sentencing of women was a study which made an effort to address the lack of extensive research into the way women are sentenced. The main aim of the study was to establish how the Magistrates go about taking account of the substantive differences in mens and womens lives and their perceptions of justice. The study was in two parts, in part 1 a test carried out suggested that women were less likely than comparable males to receive a prison sentence but they were more likely to be discharged or sentenced to a community penalty. However it was suggested that instead of the findings being interpreted as a general policy of leniency towards women, it should rather be seen that the sentencers may be reluctant to fine a woman possibly because they may be penalising her children, rather than just herself. This may have been all well and good if it were the days when majority of women still upheld their stereotypical domestic role as mothers and keepers of the home. It is part of family ideology that a womans place is in the home, while a mans task is to out to work to earn the money to support his wife and children (Allan, G 1999, p.191). However, we now live in a society where women are now bread winners, house hold duties are also taken on by men, women divorce their husbands for one reason or the other and consequently leaving the children behind for the father to take care of them. The Criminal Justice System might not take into account when sentencing men, that some of them are actually both mother and father to the children and carry out the role of the mother. In part 2 of the study nearly 200 Magistrates were interviewed; the Magistrates said they found it difficult to compare their sentencing between men and women because they dealt with female offenders less frequently. Nonetheless, they distinguished between troubled and troublesome and tended to locate most women in the troubled category. It was par tly because women tended to be first offenders, facing less serious charges than men and because they behaved more respectfully in court. The Magistrates went on to say that because they regarding women offenders as troubled, they responded to their offending with measures (a discharge or probation) designed to assist them to lead law abiding lives rather than punishing them. In an article by Jason Bennetto in The Independent, it is said that more women are committing violent crimes, particularly street robbery, burglary and fighting, and that part of the problem believed to be causing this is the result of neglect, abuse and drug or alcohol addiction. According to a report, Crimes of Desperation 2008, a significant amount of crime committed by females is rooted in poverty. As much as poverty may be the driving force for some, others may simply be using the money they have to fund their drug and alcohol use and subsequently turning to crime to further fund their tendencies. A Survey of over 1,000 mothers in prison, appears to provide some support for this report, 54% said they had no money, 38% needed to support their children, 35% were on drugs or alcoholics, 33% had family problems and 33%had no job. Caddle and Crisp (1997 cited in Newburn, T 2007 p.809) It was argued firstly by Freda Adler and later Rita Simon that female crime rates had been increasing rapidly in the late 80s and early 1970s and that they were changing their offending patterns to more masculine styles; it was due to the growth of the modern womens movement. (Maguire, M. Morgan, R. Reiner, R. 2012) In an empirical research looking at whether men and women offend for similar reasons, it was in relation to property crime that women featured most heavily in, which led to some commentators arguing that many women became involved in criminal activity for mostly to provide for children or family in circumstances where there are limited legitimate opportunities. (Newburn, T. 2007) The point is that female delinquents are not perceived to be merely adopting behaviour more usually associated with males, they are portrayed as being chromosomally or genetically abnormal. This means that the treatment of such o ¬Ã¢â€š ¬enders becomes justi ¬Ã‚ able, the aims, intentionality and rationality of the deviant act are overlooked and the social and cultural conditions under which the act took place can be relegated to the vague status of environ- mental factors whose only role is to occasionally trigger the inherent path- ology of the deviant. Crime and delinquency can thereby be treated as an individual, not social, phenomenon Smart (n.d) An alternative view to that of chivalry is double jeopardy. Heidensohn (1985) suggesting that female offenders are subjected to double jeopardy, meaning that when they are on trial, they are not only on trial for the crime they committed but also also for their femininity. Also, if any, female offenders are penalized for their sexual misconduct, while the male counterparts are not. Therefore the courts operate a double standard for female offenders. Womens low share of recorded criminality has significant consequences for those women who do offend: they are seen to have transgressed not only social norms but gender norms as well. As a result they may, especially when informal sanctions are being taken into account, feel that they are doubly punished. (Maguire, M. Morgan, R. Reiner, R. 2012) In murder cases, women get tougher sentences than men do, because in most cases the murder is premeditated. The case of R v Ahluwalia (1992) is about a woman who was being sexually abused, bullied and violently abused by her husband. After 10 years of abuse, she decided shed had enough and she poured petrol over her husbands body and set fire to him, six days later he died. She was convicted of murder because according S.3 of the Homicide act 1957 there must be a sudden and temporary loss of self-control which she did not possess at the time she killed her husband. It was seen as pre meditated because the abuse took place over 10 years. The defendant was then sentenced to life imprisonment, but was later released. Another case is the one of Zoorah Shah who was given a life sentence for killing her boyfriend by putting arsenic in his food. The courts did not take into account the fact that she was beaten regularly and exploited by her boyfriend to be prostitute. These cases are a majo r contrast to the case of David Hampson: a man smashed the head of his wife with a hammer and killed her. His reason for the murder was that his wife had nagged him for years. The judge accepted his reason as a reasonable excuse to be provoked to kill someone. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years. Looking at these cases it shows the practicality of women being subjected to double jeopardy. It seems that these women are not only being punished for their crime but also because of their biological nature. Also, it seems to show that the courts believe that it is more acceptable for a man to lose his temper as opposed to a woman, because a womans nature is meant to be submissive, calm and rational. Some would say that women should not be aggressive as it is not in their nature. Womens nature should not be a deciding factor when sentencing, if particular sentence is rightly appropriate and deserved then it should be served. If the leniency on women offenders keeps being applied, it only means they wont learn their lesson and will not be deterred in the future to committing crime again. According to a report published in 2010 in the BBC news, statistics showed that re-offending rates by women went up by four times that for men by 16.4%, compared with 4.2%.

Gullivers Travels †Innocent Nature Essay -- Gullivers Travels Essay

Gulliver's Travels – Innocent Nature I disagree that Gulliver is a naive narrator and therefore doesn't see a connection between knowledge and the acquisition of power. As R.Davis and R. Schleifer wrote, "Gulliver, gullibly suited like the rest of us, never quite understands the ... relationship between knowledge and power." There is a very close relationship between knowledge and power. With them being such important traits, each one seems to be included with the other. In Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift, the use of satirical writing on both the island of Lilliput and Brobdingang serve to make the narrator a gullible character therefore excusing critiques of English government and politics. On the island of Lilliput, in Jonathan Swift's book, Gulliver's Travels, Gulliver's innocent nature satirize the story. Upon arriving mysteriously on Lilliput, Gulliver was tied down and his weapons taken away. To his surprise his captors were only six inches tall. Gulliver's pacifist attitude allowed him to befriend the Lilliputians,...

Making Moral Decisions: George Orwell and Claire McCarthy Essay

When an incident occurs, people would like to deal with it in the way they prefer. However, there always are some situations that force people to make decisions that are opposite to their own will since people live in society and they need to consider other’s opinions. No matter if people realize or not, it is hard to make decisions totally in terms of if they like it or not, because there are many factors which need to take into consideration like moral and ethics and the effect exerted on whole society and other people’s opinion. Both George Orwell and Claire McCarthy faced the dilemma of making a choice between their feelings and other people’s thoughts. In Orwell’s article â€Å"Shooting an Elephant†, he describes a poor elephant that destroyed people’s homes and kills a man. The people in town wanted him, as sub-divisional police officer, to kill that elephant. Orwell in fact did not want to kill the elephant but he did because other peo ple wanted him to do and pressured him to make that choice. Claire McCarthy met a similar problem in her article â€Å"Dog Lab†. She knew dog lab was an efficient way for students like her to learn knowledge but she was feeling terrible and uncomfortable with killing dogs even though there were some values to do so. People in society approve of dog lab as the way to learn and they have not yet found other methods to substitute it. However, McCarthy believed in terms of morals and ethics she cannot kill an innocent dog. These two authors have no choice because they have to shoulder their responsibility. Orwell killed the elephant because he represented those people who dominate Burma and he needed to satisfy the masses in order to behave like the people in charge. McCarthy killed a dog during the experiment because she needed to well prepared for future operation on her patients. Making a decision is never easy especially when people faced with moral or ethical decisions, because those hard choices that could affect people’s lives always carried with obligations which people need to  shoulder. Choice is usually accompanied with conflicts since the one option people gain from choice is always at the cost of giving up another option. There are not always a way to obtain benefits from two o ptions just like that it is hard to satisfy two sides of people who hold different viewpoint. Orwell experienced a conflict and he wrote, â€Å"To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels†¦The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laugh at. But I did not want to shoot the elephant.† (461) Orwell as a white man, especially as a sub-divisional police, is one of the people who implement imperialism on Burma. He needed to behave like the way he should be and need to take his position and show his ability. All above point out a way for him that was to kill the elephant. However, he did not want to kill the elephant at all, because he believed the elephant was innocent and did not deserve death penalty. These two sides of thought cause a conflict. McCarthy agreed with Orwell’s feeling when she met the similar situation, which is the conflict between innocent animals and her own benefits. She stated, â€Å"I didn’t like the idea of doing the lab; it felt wrong. Yet for some reason I was embarrassed that I felt that way, and the lab seemed so important. The more I thought about it the more confused I became.† (482) McCarthy in terms of ethics felt uncomfortable with dog lab. It was not fair to take others’ life if they did nothing wrong. However, this is efficient way to learn knowledge as a medical student and she did not want to lose this chance. Both Orwell and McCarthy needed to make a choice between killing animal or not. This decision would be struggle since it related to morals and ethics and caused a conflict between people’s inner voice and what others want them to do. Following people’s inner feeling did not mean self-interest, because when conflicts occur people’s inner voice was more likely to be moral one rather than obeying others’ opinion. If people make a decision of conflicts, no matter which side they chose they have to accept the consequence their decision caused. It is not always right for a person to do most people want him to do but it is a safe way since most people stand in his side and the consequence may be better than the result of his own thought. At this point, when conflicts occurred both Orwell and McCarthy followed the way which most of people chose or wante d them to do since the  better consequence would caused. Orwell stated, â€Å" And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly†¦that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the East.† (461) Even though Orwell did not want to kill the elephant, he still did because he tried to make this incident to be simple and push it into a normal way. If Orwell kills the elephant, it will be reasonable and acceptable not only because the legal law but because satisfied Burmese desire as well, they got elephant meat as food. If Orwell did not kill the elephant the only result was Burmese would be more resentful to White men and may be cause further negative influence which would cause unstable of the society under imperialism. Compared with the consequence of two options, it should be better to choose to kill the elephant. Similarly, McCarthy chose to do dog lab after serious consideration and believe it should be better to do experiment. She stat ed â€Å"I was quiet during these discussions. I did not want to kill a dog, but I certainly wanted to take advantage of every learning opportunity offered me†¦Doing well had become so important that I was afraid to trust anyone; doing well had become more important than anything.† (481) Although McCarthy felt uncomfortable to kill the dog, she wanted to learn knowledge. If she did not come to experiment, others students would learn more knowledge than she did so that they can do much better in following study. In another aspect, she thought kill the innocent dog was not good but actually she did not experience dog lab before so that can not just deny the value of this experiment. She need to have a try to help her confirm what she real want to do in the future. Both authors take the consequence of their action into account and then make the better choice, because moral decision are not simply end by making the choice and it always followed by responsibility. Each decision people make will cause corresponding results which means people need to take responsibility when they are making decisions. However, shouldering responsibility not only happened when people are making decisions but happened after making choice as well. In Orwell’s article, he stated, à ¢â‚¬Å"I waited a long time for him to die, but his breathing did not weaken. Finally I fired my two remaining shots into the spot where I thought his heart must  be. The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but still he did not die†¦. I felt that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise.† (463) When Orwell decided to kill the elephant and took his duty as police officer, he also needed to take responsibility for this elephant’s life. Based on morals and ethics, after shooting the elephant Orwell wanted end its life soon and did not make elephant suffering from pain. Even though he can not change others thoughts and save the elephant, he tried to shoulder responsibility for the elephant’s life after making decision. At this point, McCarthy behaved like what Orwell did after she decided to kill the dog. She said, â€Å"Helping with the anesthesia, I thought, would be taking full responsibility for what I was doning, something that was very important to me. I was going to face what I was doing†¦ Maybe in part I thought of it as my penance.† (482) McCarthy really struggled for choosing to kill the dogs or not. However, after making the decision, McCarthy insisted on helping with the anesthesia because she knew she needed to take charge of dogs’ lives. When she decided to kill the dog, it carried with responsibility which means to start an incident from the beginning to the ending and treat every part seriously. After this experience, McCarthy firmly thought dog lab was really wrong for her and she made a decision to make some changes which also can be regarded as the way to shoulder responsibility. It is not difficult to find the common point that both authors choose to take their responsibility after making the choice in terms of morals and ethics. As the member of society, people need to realize the significant of taking the responsibility after making decisions. In modern society, there are always conflicts occur between what a person want to do and what others or the society what him to do about moral problems. However, it is not hard to make the decision because when people compared with the consequence which two options would caused, they can always find the better choice for the situation. After making decisions, people need to think about their responsibility. Both George Orwell and Claire McCarthy show the good quality after making decision which is not only shoulder their responsibility but also try to make change when they feel their decision are not good at all. At beginning of Orwell’s article, it was easy to tell his resentful for imperialism and implied he would leave his job and sought for change one day. Similarly, at the ending of McCarthy, she suggested after  her experiment she realized doing dog lab was not the method she wanted to learn and she would like to change the other way to go. Accordingly, when people faced moral decisions, as the member of modern society, they need to choose they way which they can obtain better consequence and have ability to take the responsibility. These are people’s basic obligations to deal with moral conflicts.

Essay on The New Deals Failure to Aid African Americans

The New Deals Failure to Aid African Americans President Roosevelts New Deal program during the 1930s failed to aid impoverished African-American citizens. The New Deal followed a long, historical chronology of American failures in attempts to ensure economic prosperity and racial equality. During the nearly seventy years after the conclusion of the Civil War, the United States faced a series of economic depressions, unmotivated Congress, and a series of mediocre presidents. With the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, few presidents were able to enact anti-depression mechanisms and minimize unemployment. The America of the 1920s was a country at its lowest economic and social stature facing a terrible depression and increasing†¦show more content†¦Instead, most early New Deal programs specifically sanctioned discrimination against African-Americans. Furthermore, political fortitude to enact civil rights legislation and put an end to racial discrimination did not exist during the New Deal era. Just prior to the New Deal, unemployment steadily rose, while the Hoover administration paid little attention to the plight of the jobless and poor. President Hoover ran for re-election and tried to assure the voters with the slogan, prosperity is just around the corner. However, the following unemployment figures, published by the Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History, indicated significant national unemployment, particularly for African-Americans: According to the 1930 census, 37 percent of working African-Americans were employed as agricultural laborers and 29 percent as personal-service and domestic workers. Only 2 percent were classified as professionals (lawyers, doctors, teachers and clergy)#8230;Unemployment increased rapidly in the early 1930s. It was thought that approximately 15 percent of the workforce were unemployed in 1930. African-American organizations estimated that the percentage of unemployed black workers was at least twice the rate of the country as a whole.3 A president who pledged to put the nation back together was what America yearned for. FDR appealed to theShow MoreRelatedFranklin Roosevelts New Deal1672 Words   |  7 Pages The date is March 12, 1933. Ordinary Americans and their families sit together in their living rooms as they turn the knob on their radios. The words â€Å"Good evening, my friends†¦Ã¢â‚¬  echo audibly over the static and ambient noise, and the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt informs the nation of his New Deal and planned solutions to the problems of post-Depression America. He speaks warmly and directly, addressing the American people â€Å"you† and himself â€Å"I†. Many people— unemployed orRead MoreThe Progressive Era And New Deal Era2021 Words   |  9 PagesThe Progressive Era and the New Deal Era had a significant amount of similarities with policies and programs to reform the American society, improve lives and fight poverty in America. Although the P rogressive and New Deal Era had many similarities, there were still differences between them that included the views of what needed to be done. Both the Progressive and the New Deal Era’s main goals were to improve the American society. Both the Progressive and New Deal’s accomplishments were rootedRead MoreHbr When Your Core Business Is Dying74686 Words   |  299 Pagescorporate performance and growth – and what those subordinates should expect in return. 58 66 Finding Your Next Core Business Chris Zook It may be hidden right under your nose. Here’s how to evaluate your current core and where to look for a new one. 78 Promise-Based Management: The Essence of Execution Donald N. Sull and Charles Spinosa The most vexing leadership challenges stem from broken or poorly crafted commitments between employees and colleagues, customers, or other stakeholdersRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesOrganizational Behavior This page intentionally left blank Organizational Behavior EDITION 15 Stephen P. Robbins —San Diego State University Timothy A. Judge —University of Notre Dame i3iEi35Bj! Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo Editorial Director: Sally Yagan Director of Editorial Services:Read MoreManagement Course: Mba−10 General Management215330 Words   |  862 Pagespublication by the instructor of this course. The instructor is solely responsible for the editorial content of such materials. 111 MANGGEN ISBN: 0−390−58539−4 Management Contents Feigenbaum−Feigenbaum †¢ The Power of Management Capital 1. New Management for Business Growth in a Demanding Economy 1 1 Text Jones−George †¢ Contemporary Management, Fourth Edition I. Management 17 17 2. The Evolution of Management Thought Hughes−Ginnett−Curphy †¢ Leadership, Fifth Edition I. LeadershipRead MoreMerger and Acquisition: Current Issues115629 Words   |  463 Pagesauthors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2007 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan ® is a registered trademark in