Criminal Justice System in England and Wales - Essay Example

Cyber Bullying in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales By Law of Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Criminological theory 3 Rational Choice Theory 4 Rational Choice Theory in Cybercrime 9 Conclusion 16 List of references 18 Introduction All over the world people, wonder why other people commit crime. Whether they are born criminals or not is anyone’s guess. In England and Wales, just like in any part of the world, crime is present and especially cyber bullying. Cyber bullying has been prompted by the rise and development of technology making the crime more rampant in the digital age than it was before. Statistics in the recent past show that approximately 4,500 children have experienced bullying online and this gives a glimpse on the reason for understanding why a human being chooses to commit a crime can assist the criminal justice system to assimilate the criminal and prevent others from joining criminal life. There are various criminological theories that have been proposed to help in understanding the mind of the criminal. Some of these theories suggest that the society is to blame for creating criminals while other theories base their arguments on the view that criminals are born and not made. With Face book and Twitter being the most popular social networking sites in the UK, cybercrime is on the increase. In England and Wales, cyber bulling is considered an offence under law. The choice theory helps in explaining the way a criminal’s mind operates in leading him to commit a crime. The bully’s reasoning is thereafter transferred on to the victim who believes whatever the bully says. The insufficient regulation of social networking sites has led to more cases of cybercrime in the UK. Children have committed suicide following the cyber bully’s opinion about the child. This essay seeks to examine how the rational choice theory can help the justice system in England and Wales against cybercrime. Criminological theory Every victim of crime wonders why people commit crime. Studying criminology helps an individual understand why people commit crime. This helps in understanding how the criminal thinks and come up with ways in how to assimilate the criminal while controlling crime. There are several theories of why people commit crime. Others propose that the individual decides to commit crime consciously while some believe that the community is responsible for crimes committed. With all the varied theories of crime available, an agreement are made that, fairness should be available in any society. In this essay, the rational choice theory will guide in understanding a criminal’s mind and ways of combating crime in England and Wales using this theory. Rational Choice Theory The rational choice theory proposes that an individual chooses to commit crime once the pain and punishment have been weighed to ascertain that it is worth the pleasure that comes with the action (WRIGHT, 2009). The rational choice theory has plans that are centred on it which determine growing the penalty for crimes in the expectation that the agony is grander than the gain with an aim to avert crime that is yet to come. This theory was established by Cesare Beccaria and was quite prominent in the field of criminology during the 20th century. This theory embraces some central concepts about why people commit crime and they include notions such as: I. Individuals have the freedom to pick the behaviour that stimulates them. The motivating factors include, greed, jealousy, and the desire for something, revenge, or they are out to commit crime for the sake of the thrill that comes with it. These are expressions of personal choice or aptitudes that individuals have. II. The fear of reprimand can determine the kind of choices a person makes. By deliberating on the advantage versus the penalties of an intended action, an individual concludes that the possibility of reprimand is not worth the contentment of committing wrong. III. Finally, the more severe the penalty, the less likely a crime will be committed because of the control of the criminal’s behaviour. SIEGEL (2006) asserts that even though it seems somewhat sophisticated and easy, the wordings on the fundamental ideologies have created varied outcomes and unresponsive recognition, on both experimental and hypothetical grounds. In the area of criminal justice policy, rational choice theory primarily fuels policies such as: I. Using tough tactics to control crime II. Regular police crackdowns in places considered to be popular hideouts for criminals III. Forms of problem-solving policies IV. Naming and shaming of offenders in public V. Discriminatory incapacitation SIEGEL (2006) indicates that the rational choice theory is widespread because it forsakes rehabilitation as a foundation of the policy of criminal justice. Most theoreticians of rational choice consider the trial of rehabilitating hard-core criminals as a waste of taxpayers’ money and time. The rational choice theory is the ordinary term for the impression that criminals participate in some intellectual rational process before deciding to commit a crime. Rational choice theory, which is sometimes referred to as the routine activities theory, claims that there is necessity for three essentials of the condition to be present for any crime to take place. These three elements are: I. There has to be potential offenders who have thought out the possible outcome of the crime they intend to commit and concluded. II. Suitable targets of crime that most likely are not aware they are targets and go about their activities normally. III. In addition, incapable, unwilling or absent parents, caregivers or guardians who subconsciously pushes the criminal to the limits of contemplating and finally committing crime. In theory, inspiration is understood as a purpose of chance, and practically, the theory is employed further to expound on victimization than the reasons for criminal conduct. There are several factors that are known to determine whether the contact between the criminal and the victim will occur; nonetheless, the two central ones are demographics and everyday life. However, TEWKSBURY & MUSTAINE (2005) are of a different view that even if demographic factors are appropriate to add to a criminological theory, no theory should be based on them. Whereas old-fashioned criminology was inclined to view offenders as being determined by habituation and surroundings, new economy centred theories depict them are sensible decision makers who establish their choices to commit crime on an examination of the dangers of the undertaking likened to the likely returns. The criminal to determine his choice does cost-benefit scrutiny. The rational choice standpoint is the starting point that crime is selected for its profits. Rational choice theory asserts that if the gains of the crime are high, and the cost low, this ground is good for crime. However, if the cost of the crime is high and the profits low, it is less likely that a crime will take place. A repercussion of the rational choice theory, therefore, is that if the rates of crime are made too high for the delinquents, the so-called rational criminals will be controlled or discouraged from committing crime (SCHMALLEGER&PITTARO, 2009). At the centre of the viewpoint of rational choice is the hypothesis that felonious and delinquent offenders are determined and aim to display a degree of reasonableness on particular levels that they contemplate on the probable expenses and profits of wrongdoing and act in view of that. The seemingly sophisticated theory of rational choice experiences complications in being investigated accurately. Foremost, it is difficult to explain and make the main variables operational. For example, how does one explain “potential” criminals, “suitable” targets of crime and finally how does the impression of parenthood or guardianship heap up with what is known about the variables of communal incompetence? Similarly, the utmost feebleness of the routine activities theory is the incapability to identify precisely where the crime hotspot zones are found (TEWKSBURY & MUSTAINE, 2005). This theory can be helpful with the “Three Ds” of averting crime, but does not deliver on its assurance of being a theory about the period, the place and under what conditions crime is likely to take place. The distinguishing factor of rational choice methodology of criminals who make rational choices founded on calculated thought is that it rubbishes deterministic and compulsive descriptions for wrongdoing in support of clarifications for criminal conduct. These provide the goal-oriented, sensible and daily characteristics of human action a fundamental dwelling. Consequently, the rational choice theory can be differentiating from old-fashioned criminological theories that take for granted the idea criminals are not the same as ordinary people (TEWKSBURY & MUSTAINE, 2005). On the other hand, contained by criminology, rational choice theory may perhaps have turned out to be less popular, for the reason that to various criminologists this method proposes a striking substitute to whatever they contemplate to be excessively compulsive details for wrong doing while promising additional active plans and schemes of felonious course of action and crime prevention. Whereas researchers of crime discard rational choice theory largely for its plan repercussions, hardly have they engaged in the trouble of seriously scrutinizing the hypothetical complications of the rational choice methodology. Nonetheless, a precarious argument of rational choice theory ought to not to be narrowed to the territory of crime rule. It must also be able to, and additionally vital, interrogate the rudimentary norms, restrictions, and inadequacies of the hypothetical model. In ignoring the part of customs, standards and ethical sentiments such as responsibility and disgrace and parting with normative and expressive essentials of choice, the rational choice viewpoint appears to twist the nature of the act it describes in terms of sensible choice (TEWKSBURY & MUSTAINE, 2005). This model misinterprets reasonableness and choice, by disregarding that collective actors in society do not have choices or make choices and, if they make choices, they are not essentially sensible. With this in mind, more work needs to be done regarding the rational choice theory. The vital way in which the theoreticians of rational action plan manage the many reproaches they get and attempt to guard their method is by saying that the idea of what precisely amounts to sensible is purely not the point. Therefore, the very model of rational choice is one of comprehensible action and no further questions need to be asked about it. In other words, there is nothing else to know about it, because rational action is self-explanatory (PIQUERO&TIBBETTS, 2002). The first difficulty is that rational choice takes up the idea that personal action is influential should be clarified by the criminals’ resolve to reach particular aims. Action, on the other hand, is not permanently influential and hence, ration choice theory cannot be categorised as a universal concept of action. The second difficulty is that rational choice theory has never been successful in clarifying in a satisfactory manner, essential classes of occurrences. Thirdly, is that this form of reasonableness is not the sole form signifying the exclusivity of offering justification devoid of evidence. Rational Choice Theory in Cybercrime Connectivity to the internet has experienced a huge growth over the last decade. Unfortunately, this has been the best environment for cyber criminals to launch their criminal activities. Whereas the motives of crime are bound to change, the variety and number of opportunities for cybercrime are constantly on the increase (ROSS, 2010). Rational choice theory can be used to explain the motive behind cybercrime. Rational choice theory states that for a crime to be committed, a criminal must have made a rational choice based on the idea that the benefits are more important than the probable negative concerns. Before investigating the relationship between rational choice theory and cyber bullying, it is important to consider the fundamentals of the theory. I. The rational choice theory is based on the assumption that a person is a rational actor. II. Rationality encompasses an end and means scheming. What matters is how to get to where the criminal intends to get. III. Human beings liberally decide on conduct, both in compliance and divergent, centred on their coherent intentions. IV. The principal component of intention consists of a cost benefit exploration. V. Choice, all other conditions held constant, will be channelled to the expansion of personal desire. VI. Choice can be organized through the discernment and consideration of the possible pain or penalty that will precede an act considered to be in abuse of social good. VII. The state is in charge for upholding order and conserving the common good through a system of laws that guard against crime. Cyber bullying can be committed by anyone; even a person known to the victim, mostly a child, in school, in the social environment or the home environment. Although some people say that crime committed within the internet is more dominant than crime committed outside the internet, others strongly disagree with this myth. SCHERER (2011) maintains that this myth is due to ancient data that was compiled before the internet was introduced. He further says that during the olden days, computers were uncommon and the internet non-existent contrary to the current situation where most people have access to the internet. There are no clear statistics about cybercrime because most go unreported. Rational choice theory is of the view that at every stage through the happening of cybercrime such as cyber bullying, a choice is made on whether to proceed or not. The bully has to consider the profits of the next step with the penalty if caught. For that reason, cybercrimes can be stopped by finding out the choices that should to be made at every phase and eradicate them or make the penalties more severe (JAISHANKAR, 2011). A challenge comes when the benefits of the crime overshadow the penalties. In the UK, most criminal cases would be tried under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, with a thoroughgoing sentence of 10 years in prison, which, lately, was reformed to 5 years (WALES, 2010). The rational choice theory is applicable to cybercrime and in return helps in the evaluation of its rudimentary drive. This theory comprises the roles of penalties, ethically influenced sentiments such as disgrace and humiliation together with proper approvals in discouraging cybercrime, in addition to the role of protection position in regulating the prospect to attack and growing the possibility that a bully will be discovered and made public. Limited efforts have been put in place to know cybercrime in the setting of characteristic crime for of its exclusivity. In cybercrime, there is inaccessibility in the bully-victim contact, ease of bullying and accessibility of internet. In growing the theory, evidence from research in old crime was connected to cybercrime, permitting investigation of previous cyber bullying occurrences and the succeeding stoppage of imminent cybercrimes and qualification of their effects (WALL, 2007). Rational choice theory make available a viewpoint on the reason why cyber bullies resolve to commit that crime; people decide to participate in wrong doing for the reason that it was pleasing, simple, enjoyable or fulfilling. The dominant notion of this model is that human beings are sensible creatures whose conduct can be influenced or adjusted by the dread of penalty. However, it is quite a task to catch a cyber bully because the crime happens through the internet and the victim might not freely disclose who the bully is mostly because they believe that the bully is right (PIQUERO&TIBBETTS, 2002). Further, this theory is grounded on a practical conviction that activities are founded on a cognisant assessment of the value of behaving in a particular way. The cyber bully commits the crime because they have chosen to commit the crime. The cyber bullies are therefore, solely responsible for their actions and they are to blame for the crime. In the UK, the probability of a cyber bully being caught is low because there are no definite laws in the criminal justice system to get the offender (PIQUERO&TIBBETTS, 2002). The rational choice theory can be useful in England and Wales in helping the criminal justice system understand the criminal’s mind and the reason for committing cyber bullying. Unfortunately, the UK does not have distinct laws against cyber bullying, making it difficult to find out the cyber criminals and the approach to rehabilitate them before they cause more damage. The insufficient regulation of social networking cites is a major problem in Wales (WALES ONLINE, 2013). The rational choice theory can be helpful to the criminal justice system in Wales and England by considering the personal factors that are causing the cyber bullies to commit crime. These personal influences range from the need for retaliation, for amusement purposes to situational factors such as the victim’s weakness. By understanding these influences, the criminal justice system in the two countries can be able to find and rehabilitate the bullies WALES ONLINE, 2013). The criminal’s choices are controlled by the societal environment and situational variables. According to this theory, the availability of an opportunity to commit crime motivates a criminal to commit a crime. Cyber bullies take advantage of an unprotected target and make the target vulnerable. Once the criminal justice system in England and Wales understand the rational choice theory, then combating cybercrime will be an easier task than it is today. If other ways of motivating criminals can be put in place, the criminals will realize that there are other alternatives to crime (WALES ONLINE, 2013).This is because offenders or criminals are less likely to commit crime if they achieve personal goals through legitimate means. Based on the notion that cyber bullies take advantage of absent guardians can encourage the guardians, parents or caregivers to monitor the activities of the children under their care while online (CARR, 2009). This can be done through video surveillance or being there physically. This will in turn the cyber bully from intimidating children because there is no benefit in the crime. Wales and England’s criminal justice system should ensure that learning institutions or homes consider these physical security measures in order to limit the bully’s access to the potential victims. Safety of people online has posed danger for some time now to the cyberspace at the end of the twentieth century. Social networking sites are a good source of information as well as great platforms for interaction; however, it poses substantial dangers. People who are aiming at harassing other online users (JOHNSON, 2013) use the internet. Rational choice theory states that rebellious actions are the outcome of an evaluation of costs vis-à-vis the profits whereby the profits overshadow the costs. Individuals make rational conclusions around the concerns of danger, struggle and incentive (CLARKE AND FELSON, 2008). In cyber bullying, the dangers are somehow minimal. The criminals conduct his activities in secrecy and there is a lack of interpersonal evidences and physical nearness and regulation in cyberspace. The effort it takes a bully is less because majority of children and youth have internet access. With less struggle or danger, the cyber bully is capable of deliberately and frequently bullying his target, confirming that there is a power inequality between him and the victim. The main assumption linked to this is that cyber bullying is a rational choice. Conversely, this first assumption seems not to clarify the reason why some adolescents make a rational choice to engage in cyber bullying while other adolescents do not (CLARKE AND FELSON, 2008). Rational choices can be guided by self-control. This self-control greatly reduces the possibility of crime. There was a case in the UK, of Holly Grogan who committed suicide after abuse from Face book bullies in September 2009 (BIRD, 2009). This illustrates the possible vulnerability of cyber bullying by people of a relatively young age. The feeling of hopelessness, solitude, being troubled, and having low self-confidence can lead a teenager to cyber bully his age-mates for revenge or for personal satisfaction. In this case, the teenager has not used rational choice to control himself against committing a cybercrime. Cyber bullying is attributed to the lack of supervision or regulation by criminal justice system of countries such as England and Wales. Subsequently, the cyber bullies spend more time online than those who are not bullies. They mostly use internet applications that are supposed to be used for purposes of communicating with others, making their objective of bullying more effective. The parents of the cyber bullies are also not involved with the behaviour of their children while online (CLARKE AND FELSON, 2008). This is also true for the parents of the potential targets of cybercrime. The relationship between cyber bullies and their caregivers or guardians is not strong compared to the bond between the victims of cyber bullying and their caregivers. Having made a rational choice to bully other online users, the cyber bully does the bullying act anonymously. Cyber bullies can commit the offence for purposes of revenge, which may be directed to the wrong people or for the fun of it not knowing the danger, they put their victims in. They make the rational choice to bully to feel satisfied and excited. These victims are mostly children of between 12 to 18 years old (SCHMALLEGER&PITTARO, 2009). The cyber bully targets the weak age where the victims are struggling to find place in society and build a name for them. The cyber bully comes in to ensure that the victim feels more disliked in the social setting he finds himself in. most of the victims of cyber bullying are mostly girls because of their soft nature and their desire to fit in to a social group. The cyber bully uses this to dishearten the girls. However, boys are also vulnerable to cyber bullying. In the UK, Face book and Twitter are the most popular social networking sites with approximately 35 million Face book users and 15 million Twitter users. For this reason cyber, bullying is quite rampant in Wales and England. This is the best ground for a cyber bully to launch an attack because the targets are online most of the time. This gives a cybercriminal easy time where his cost is low and benefits high. Cyber bullying causes severe effects to the victims with some being fatal. Cases of children murdering their peers and committing suicide are common in the UK. This is because the cyber bullies have made them to think that they are not popular among their peers causing them to have problems at school and begin carrying weapons in order to prove that they are popular (CLARKE AND FELSON, 2008). These decisions have been made possible by their interaction with the rational decision makers who influence their behaviour. In order for the criminal justice system of England and Wales to counter cyber bullying, certain approaches (CARR, 2009) against the vice should be taken. Such approaches include I. The first approach is by concentrating on increasing consciousness about the nature, degree and effects of cyber bullying in societies. This is a major step in controlling cyber bullying because the cyber bully might be in the same community and will not want to be identified as a criminal. By using the rational choice theory, reducing the benefits of cyber bullying and increasing the cost will discourage the bully from continuing with the crime. II. The second approach is to increase communication about the use of the internet between teenagers and grown-ups. Free communication is vital because the parents will know what activities their children are engaged in while they are online and in case of a threat, the child is able to freely tell the parent or caregiver available. III. The third important approach is to intensification adult observation on the behaviour of children and the youth while online. Parents can make use software to monitor the conversations that their children are engaging in while online. This way it will be easier for the parents to detect a potential threat while keeping the cyber bullying away. The World Wide Web makes available an endless audience for criminals. For instance, when a bully uploads a video that is meant to make fun of someone on the web, everyone around the world with an internet connection is able to view it. This is a very simple way used by cybercriminals to hurt their victims intentionally (CLARKE AND FELSON, 2008). This also makes it possible for bullies to commit crime at whatever time they wish and wherever they are. Cyberspace does not limit the criminal’s activities at any time or location. Rational choice theory and self-control go hand in hand because the latter influences the former. High self-control is believed to effectively avert crime. Among the youth, there are factors that influence their level of self-control that may lead them to commit cybercrime (SCHMALLEGER&PITTARO, 2009). These factors include I. The level of attachment between parents and their children may influence how much self-control the children have. II. The level at which parents supervise the behaviour of their children, when with them helps in having a deeper sense of the children’s conduct, when they are away from parents. If children are rarely supervised, they are likely to develop a liking for cybercrime for various reasons such as fun and satisfaction. III. The ability of parents to recognize deviant behaviour. This calls for close monitoring of children to be able to know when behaviours begin to change. IV. The extent to which parents punish deviant behaviour. If parents are reluctant to punish and rebuke deviant behaviour, the youth will not see a need to practice self-control because it thrills them to avoid. This leads them to making rational decisions that most likely to crime. Conclusion With regard to cybercrime in England and Wales, it is clear that criminals exercise some form of preparation and forethought and familiarise their conduct to take consideration of cost and benefit eventualities. Even though some researchers argue that crime is because of choice, they differ in what establishes a rational decision. The rational choice theory has plans that are centred on it which determine growing the penalty for crimes in the expectation that the agony is grander than the gain with an aim to avert crime that is yet to come. This theory can be useful in England and Wales in helping the criminal justice system understand the mind of the criminal and the reason for committing cybercrime. By understanding the influences of crime, the criminal justice system in the two countries can be able to find and rehabilitate the bullies. Rational choices can be guided by self-control an in return; self-control reduces the possibility of crime. List of references BIRD, S. (2009) ‘Holly Grogan, 15, leapt to her dead after abuse from Facebook bullies’, Times Online, September 21, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6841908.ece, (Accessed 7th May 2015) CARR, I. (2009). Computer crime. Farnham, Surrey, England, Ashgate Pub. CLARKE, R. V. G., & FELSON, M. (2008). Routine activity and rational choice. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers. JAISHANKAR, K. (2011). Cyber criminology: exploring Internet crimes and criminal behavior. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. JOHNSON, M. (2013). Cyber crime, security and digital intelligence. Farnham, Surrey, Gower Pub. Ltd. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10727501. PIQUERO, A. R., & TIBBETTS, S. G. (2002). Rational choice and criminal behavior: recent research and future challenges. New York, Routledge. ROSS, J. I. (2010). Cybercrime. New York, Chelsea House. SCHERER, L. S. (2011). Cyberbullying. Farmington Hills, Mich, Greenhaven Press. SCHMALLEGER, F., & PITTARO, M. (2009). Crimes of the Internet. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. SIEGEL, L. J. (2006). Criminology. Belmont, CA, Thomson/Wadsworth. TEWKSBURY, R., & MUSTAINE, E. (2005). Insiders’ Views of Prison Amenities. Criminal Justice Review. 30, 174-188. Wales Online, 2013. Children’ commissioner for Wales says law is needed to tackle cyberbullying. [Online]. Available at http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/childrens-commissioner-wales-says-law-6186588 [Accessed 2 May. 2015]. WALES. (2010). Guidance for the scrutiny of crime and disorder matters - Wales: implementing sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. Cardiff, Welsh Assembly Government. WALL, D. (2007). Cybercrime: the transformation of crime in the information age. Cambridge, Polity. WRIGHT, J. P. (2009). Rational choice theories. [New York], Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/display/id/obo-9780195396607-0007 Read More