Criminology: The Justifications for Violence - Term Paper Example

As crime increases in both intensity and rate, the justifications for violence are similarly increasing. Not only is aggravated assault being justified but the ultimate in crime, the murder of innocent civilians, is being excused through reference to such phenomenon as road rage, black rage and, more recently, sports parent rage, among others. Commenting on the aforementioned trend in an article entitled "The Abuse Excuse Is Detrimental to the Justice System, the renown defense attorney and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz argues that the problem is not so much that the justifications for murder and violence are becoming increasingly ludicrous but that jurors and courts are accepting them. Added to that, and as the equally famed defense attorney, Leslie Abramson points out, the criminal justice system is further conspiring against its own self and undermining its own effectiveness by reneging on the principle of the equality of all before the law. People are not comparably judged for comparable crimes, according to Abramson. Indeed, the arguments forwarded by both Dershowitz and Abramson appear to underscore the degree to which the law is failing in its responsibility to deter crime through the deliverance of justice. Even while conceding to the validity of Dershowitz and Abramson's arguments, the fact remains that some homicides are justifiable, that retaliatory justice is a legitimate phenomenon and, the key to the deliverance of effective justice lies in the implementation of Black's Law Dictionary's distinctions between the various types of homicide. Although deadly violence against others is a crime which, in the majority of cases, cannot go unpunished, the law recognizes that some acts of violence may be provoked and justified. As clarified in Black's Law Dictionary, there are three categories of homicide, those being justifiable, excusable and felonious. The first two embrace homicides of varying degrees of culpability, ranging from the completely justifiable for reasons of necessity, such as self-defense, to the partially understandable, such as the retaliatory. At the same time, however, the law clearly recognizes the inexcusability of some acts of violence and, accordingly, determines the protection of society against its perpetrators through the levying of severe punishments. Indeed, as may be inferred from Black's Law Dictionary, the law recognizes varying degrees of culpability and acknowledges that some homicides are not just justifiable but necessary, just as it maintains that some are inexcusable and entirely without justification. Exploiting the law's recognition of the justifiability of some types of homicide, some criminal defense attorneys have sought the propagation of psychological justifications which are little other than "junk science" (Dershowitz). As Dershowitz points out, novel, and unsound, justifications are constantly being invented. For example, the defense lawyer for the African American male who shot commuters for apparently no reason, argued that he was suffering from black rage. In other words, his experiences as an African American had driven him to the point where he unthinkingly succumbed to his rage and retaliated against an abusive and unjust society by killing commuters. Irrespective of legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the phenomenon of black rage, the rights of the victims need be considered. As Dershowitz emphasizes, even though defense lawyers paint images of unsympathetic victims and sympathetic defendants, the fact is that the greater majority of victims are innocent. Their rights must be considered and as long as murder is unjustifiably excused with increasing inventiveness, they cannot be. The law, the very concept of justice, is being undermined. Not only is the law being undermined by junk science and juries' acceptance of it, but also by the fact that the law simply does not regard all as equal. Leslie Abramson, a criminal defense attorney, contends that justice is skewed towards a male-centric definition whereby it more readily excuses the male for acts of violence than it does the female. The law, according to Abramson, is inherently chauvinistic and hardly regards all as equal. As Abramson points out through reference to criminal cases, while juries readily excuse men who kill their wives, they are infinitely more reluctant to justify a wife's act of violence. Indeed, a jury found a woman who had killed her husband out of genuine fear for her life and as a result of the psychological terror which he had put her through, guilty. Irrespective of the fact that the verdict was later overturned on appeal, the fact is, as Abramson points out, justice is undermined by the fact that all are not regarded as equal. The gender of victim and defendant plays a fundamental role in the determination of the justifiability of the crime in question. For justice to reassert itself, it is imperative that the criminal justice regard all defendants as equal and that victims be properly and accurately identified. At the present moment, and as may be understood from both Dershowitz and Abramson, the differentiation between victim and victimizer is becoming extremely blurred. On the one hand, a man who kills and shoots several innocent commuters is presented as the victim, just as is the man who kills his wife and her lover in a supposed fit of jealousy (Dershowitz). On the other hand, the woman who kills her husband because of the psychological terror he unleashes upon her (Abramson) or the Hezbollah fighters who are trying to free their country of an occupation force, are regarded as criminals ("What Is A Terrorist"). The cited examples do not simply underscore the extent to which justice has become perverted but highlight the degree to which the lines between criminal and victim are becoming confusingly fluid. The victim is increasingly portrayed as the criminal, and the criminal as the victim. It is, thus, that those who fight in defense of their country are labeled terrorists and women who kill out of genuine fear for their lives are regarded as cold-blooded murderers. It is also, thus, that an African American's murder of innocent civilians is regarded as a justifiable instance of black rage. As may be determined from the foregoing argument, the rights of victims, hence society, are contingent upon differentiating between criminals and victims, between justifiable, excusable and felonious homicide. As may be inferred from both Dershowitz and Abramson, making the said distinctions may not be easy but they are not impossible either. In essence, successfully doing so is dependant on the reassertion of legal distinctions between the different types of homicides. Accordingly, the circumstances governing each crime need to be critically and objectively considered. This necessitates the exploration of the relationship between victims and defendants, in addition to the events surrounding the execution of the crime in question. Upon consideration of the aforementioned, not only will that which may drive a woman to kill her sleeping husband be better understood but courts can better identify the real victim and the real criminal. Justice depends on the capacity and the ability of courts of law to do so. In sum, it is evident that the deliverance of justice is predicated on an objective consideration of the circumstances which incite crime, just as it is on the treatment of all as equal before the law. While homicide needs to be actively discouraged through the imposition of strict legal penalties, the fact is that some forms of homicide are justified by their cause. Therefore, courts needs to objectively consider causal factors when rendering judgment but not junk science. That is, causes must be grounded in fact and they must be solidly based on proven psychological phenomenon and not on scientifically unproven psychological conditions exploited by criminal defense attorneys for the justification of the unjustifiable. Read More