The Morality of the Criminal Process and its Effects on a Victim - Essay Example

The Morality of the Criminal Process and its Effects on a Victim Courts of law have always been biased on how they handle criminal cases that adversely affect the victims they persecute and jail for crimes that they might have done or were innocently victimized for. The courts only evaluate some amount of evidence regarding such cases without in-depth investigations and the judgments passed are always based on insufficient evidence at times. But still there are many factors that contribute to a crime if truly the victims are guilty as charged which are never considered or reviewed by the court. Criminal cases should be looked at in different perspectives so as to critically examine the crime, the criminal and the underlying circumstances that led to the felony. Many people get punished for crimes they probably did for good reasons, in the broad perspective of, just to make ends meet. When these individuals serve their sentences, but in the back of their minds they feel they are unlucky victims who were not given ample chance to explain themselves, they eventually return to commit a considerably severe crime. This paper explains the authenticity of the criminal process, its morality to the victims and how brainwashing it is to the people defending the victim. Punishment is a worldwide phenomenon that cuts across even the smallest units of society, families. No society can live smoothly without imposing punishment on offenders who go against the laws and customs governing them. This could propose an escalation of crime but on the other hand punishment has only been measured by people’s opinions (lawyers, judges, witnesses, investigators), which often act as scapegoats to the nature of crimes that felons commit. Punishment still remains a stumbling block that attracts constant debate. The word crime has been overrated with the fact that law identifies it at one angle rather than at different standpoints. By clarifying this, crime is a universal term used in law to denote a felony regardless of its stature, unless it is deeply scrutinized. When a felon is sentenced after trial, the punishment rests in his or her mind as he or she sees himself/herself as a reject in the society regardless of the type of punishment that was slapped on him or her. For instance, when a culprit (Shirley) is caught shoplifting from a store and arraigned in court, different perspectives of arguments arise surrounding this crime. She claims she is unemployed and tries to make ends meet with the welfare check she receives which caters for her mother’s rent, food and heating leaving her with no cash for her own welfare. Originating from a single parent family, she is pressed to go the extra mile of getting money, which prompted her to shoplift because she did not have money to buy her mother a gift for Christmas. Analyzing her argument shows remorse and regret for her actions but on the other hand it depicts her desperation to meet her and her family’s needs. This shows how she is caught up in the midst of life problems that if the judge justifies her point, should give an appropriate punishment. The arguments displayed by the politician does not at all have a drop of pity to the poor girl and her family by saying that the lack of employment does not escalate crime and in this case not an excuse for Shirley to shoplift. It shows how the rich despise the poor in the society and judge them in the radar of their own platforms. (Reiman 2013) A utilitarian reasoning displays that there is no critical connection between crime and punishment. If the societies’ objective is to lessen criminal activities and the subsequent punishments, this creates an open forum of debate whether to scrap off the system of punishment or not. It begs the question if there should be another way of dealing with wrongdoings in a “social hygiene” perspective. Further to this, this utilitarian view must look at the punishment as an open moral decision for the innocent victim. If some heinous crime has happened and an innocent victim is caught up in the events of the same crime, to some extent the punishment might be imposed on the victim to maintain the restrictive effect of law. The manner in which people react to behavior influences the day-to-day significance of the same behavior. For instance, when it comes to drug wars, it is the women and children who endure the worst consequences because they are always ill-treated by policies that assist in breeding drug abuse which results into life threatening circumstances, health complications, restriction of their cure and seeing them as if they are the real criminals. The families eventually become victims of domestic violence, financial insecurity, and weakened livelihoods caused by the male drug abusers (Elias 1993). When law focusses on gender and domestic violence, there are many facets of domestic abuse that’s carries a case. The family as a unit is a private space where two hearts come together to make a living but when life-threatening situations arise, there are ways to solve them before the law comes into play. The law is biased in some way because when an abuser files a case against his or her partner, the crime initially is looked at in the angle that the abuser is the victim unless a thorough investigation s done to turn tables on the “victim”. For instance, high-profile cases have always generated media coverage and levels of speculations often go high when it comes to spousal abuse. This leads to the media expounding on features of the case that should be less publicized. This causes cracks in the case because public opinion is paramount to development of any story. A crucial example is when a famous politician, Lorena Bobbitt had been going through a series of abuse inflicted to her by her husband for many years in which her husband claimed that he had the right to be a dominant factor in her life. Simpson on the other hand had the history of battering his wife, which prompted his wife to call the police in1989. The outcome was that he was given a soft punishment: small fines coupled with community service. Similarly, many domestic violence individuals, Simpson felt that matters to do with domestic life of families are not the concern of any authority since the unit is sacred and knit by respect and trust. This was evident when he dismissed a policeman in his homestead asking him what he was doing there (Copelon, 1990). In conclusion, there are many ways of dealing with crimes and criminals without victimization and causing negative effects to both the culprits and the victims of crime as this can have a long term effect on their livelihoods. Punishments should not be based on people’s opinions but on factual evidence that has been thoroughly examined. Courts of law must look into people’s welfare in comparison to the crimes they have committed before sentencing them. Some individuals are victims of innocent crimes that they might have done to cover up something worse. Human beings whether rich or poor must be given equal opportunities in life by passing judgments in the most humane way rather than looking at the shallow ends of the cases that befall them. Works Cited Chasin, “Interpersonal Violence and Race and Gender”, 2007. Print Copelon, "Crime Not Fit to Be Named", 1990. Print Elias, "Wars on Drugs As Wars on Victims" in Emilio Viano (ed.), Victim Rights and Reforms (Onati, Spain: International Institute for Sociology of Law, 1993. Reiman, The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Go To Prison. Chapter. 4, Appendix NI, "You Are the Judge" 2013. Print Read More