Crimes Against Property and Crimes Against the State - Research Paper Example

Running Head: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON "MURDER", CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY AND CRIMES AGAINST THE Catrina Jensen POL 303 The AmericanConstitution Presented to Amy Donnoe February 15, 2010 Introduction "All crimes should not be equally punished as they have different weight making it necessary for the punishment given to match this weight" Crime is known to be an act or omission which is not allowed by criminal law and is usually punished by imprisonment or fine. There are two basic classes of law; there is criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is where the government prosecutes a person for an act or omission that is classified as a crime. On the other hand, civil cases involve organizations and individuals who intent to decide legal disputes. In a criminal law, a prosecutor representing the state initiates the suit. A suit is brought by the victim in the case of a civil case. Where one is found liable in a criminal case, he may be incarcerated, fined or both while in the case of a civil case, the person is not incarcerated but only pays money or property. Crimes against the person "murder" Murder is considered the most serious violent crime and its punishment is life prison, long prison life or capital punishment (death). Different states have different laws in relation to murder but the common division is manslaughter and murder. Murder is where the killer thought and intended to kill without a justifiable reason. In this case, the killer does not have a reasonable explanation to commit the crime. Murder can also take place under the felony-murder rule. Where one in the course of committing a felony such as robbery kills somebody else, he is charged with murder although there was no initial plan or premeditation. In this case, the person acted in a dangerous way and his behavior led to the death of somebody else. The difference between manslaughter and murder therefore is in the fact that there is no premeditation in manslaughter. Manslaughter is further divided into voluntary and involuntary categories. Voluntary manslaughter means that the intention to kill is there but it comes up suddenly due to intense emotions but it was not planned. In this case, there is no cooling off period between the action that brought the aggravation and the killing. There is no intention to kill but it happens due to carelessness or negligence. Voluntary manslaughter is not as serious as murder but it results to prison time. The only killing where the killer is released from responsibility is killing in self defense (Storing, 1981). Crimes against Property Crimes against property are those which involve theft without any force or threat directed towards a person. These include burglary, motor vehicle theft, larceny-theft and arson. Burglary is where one enters into somebody else's property such as a building to steal something. Lacenny-theft does not involve entry into a person's property but it is the unlawful taking of property. Embezzlement involves the changing something that was lawfully acquired to conduct unlawful activities. In embezzlement, the property must have come to the suspect's possession through a fiduciary relationship. It involves an element of breach of trust. It is necessary to prove breach of trust by showing that the property in question was handled in a manner that is not consisted with the trust arrangement. The required mental state for one to be accused of embezzlement is that there must have had been an intent to defraud and convert the property in question. Other types of crimes against property include false pretenses and receiving stolen property. In false pretenses, a person is deceived to give up his rightful ownership or possession of property with an intention of converting the property to personal use. Possession or concealing, receiving and buying of stolen property also constitute of a crime against property. Under the crimes against property, extortion is the only intent crime. Another word for extortion is blackmail. It involves the taking of property unlawfully from another person. It usually involves a threat of some harm in the future. It can be carried over the phone, email or similar ways and the offender and victim do not have to confront each other. The victim does not have to cooperate for extortion to result. Different crimes carry different weight with them; that is why each crime committed first goes through a court for it to be decided so that an equal remedy is given. As discussed above, crimes are divided into several classes and each class carries a different weight. Those that are worst are given harsh sentences than the lighter crimes. Some people argue that all crimes should be given the same kind of punishment. They further argue that, giving some crimes lighter sentences than others encourages the crime with lighter sentences. This is not true because each crime committed does not have an equal effect. Some crimes like murder are the worst as they involve the taking away of life. Others like theft without violence are not as bad as the person carrying out the crime does not hurt anybody. It would be unfair to give the two people who have committed these two crimes the same punishment. Each crime should thus carry a punishment that is equal to the crime committed. The difference in the punishment according to the type of crime reduces the possibility of committing a more violent crime as the person committing the crime will avoid committing a crime that will be punished more harshly. In other words, people also consider the cost and benefit involved in the crime. They know that there is the possibility of being caught so they will avoid doing something that might lead to a more punitive sentence. If we consider a situation where all the crimes carried the same weight, it means that the people committing a crime will not care the damage they cause while committing the crime as they will be punished the same way. While committing a crime, one will know the punishment to get from that and therefore the person will only be worried about taking care and not the punishment he is likely to receive. This means that if all the crimes were given the same punishment, the person carrying out a crime will have fewer worries while undertaking the crime as he already knows what he will get as punishment and does not have to think about it. Another important point to consider in the debate on whether all crimes should carry an equal punishment is the fact that anybody who decides to carry out a crime will always plan to do more harm. This is so as to make the person feel that he is being punished for a crime that he really committed if caught. Nobody would like to feel that they are being punished for a crime that they did not commit. This point therefore means that, if there was a universal sentence for all crimes, it would mean that people will be encouraged to carryout serious crimes once they decide to carry out crimes. Some of the arguments that have been proposed by the people that support a universal punishment for all crimes include; a crime is a crime and anyone carrying out a crime that is small will eventually carry out a more serious crime in future. They argue that committing any crime should be considered serious and therefore a punitive punishment should be put in place for all crimes (Jones, 1979). The people do not consider the fact that what they call punitive punishment might not be punitive to all the people found guilty of any crime. In other words, there is no general way of finding out what is punitive. All there is a punitive crime for every crime committed but not for all the crimes. If there was a general punishment, some people might end up being more punished than they should while others mind end up getting a less punishment than they should (Wall, 2005). In the case of crimes against a person, it has been discussed above that they include murder which is the most violent crime in this group and probably in all the crimes that can be committed. One of the punishments that can be given for this kind of crime is death. This means that if there was a single set punishment set for all the criminals and this punishment was not death, then any person who committed a crime whose punishment would have been death without this general punishment would end up being under-punished. In order to solve this problem, the general law of punishing a criminal would have to be through death. This means that anybody found guilty would be put into death no matter what the crime was. This is actually not realistic. In such a situation, it would mean that there would not be prisons where people found guilty of various crimes could be taken to be reformed (Sherman, 2002). On the other hand, there are some crimes which have been discussed like those on property whose punishment to the person found guilty would be fine. This is the right punishment for such a person and therefore, if a person was found guilty of such a crime the only fair punishment would be to pay such a fine. In order to cater for such a criminal in a world where there was only a universal punishment for all the criminals, it would mean that the universal crime would need to be a payment of the fine. This means that even the person who has committed murder would be supposed to pay a fine if found guilty. In other words, committing murder will not mean death or life imprisonment. A system where each crime was given a punishment which equaled the crime would be fair. There is no way that it can be concluded that 'a crime is a crime'. Such a conclusion would be unfair mostly to the people who commit petty crimes as they would end up maybe going to prison. The only thing that can be done is to review the current crimes and the punishment for each to ensure that they are fair to the criminal depending on the nature of the crime. The people who propose a universal way of punishing criminals are those who think that they will never be found guilty of any crime. In other words, they do not put their self in the position of the criminal and think of how they would feel if they were punished so unfairly (John & Perry, 1988). Conclusion All the crimes should not be equally punished because of their different nature. There should be well developed and laid down rules on how to deal with any crime. Through this, each crime should be given the punishment that it deserves. Another thing that can be looked at is ensuring that each criminal is punished as required. This is because there are some criminal who get away with crime because of their power which might be politically or financially. References John, H., & Perry, M. (1988). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers.People and Folks. Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City. Chicago: Publisher name and contact information, as provided by the publisher; updated only if notified by the publisher.Lake View Press. Jones, D. (1979). Crimes without Punishment. United states: Lexington Books Sherman. (2002). Evidence Based Crime Prevention. Routledge. Storing, H. J. (1981). The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wall, D. (2005). Crimes and the Internet. Journal of information Ethics, 14(2), 77-103 Read More