Social control and discretion in the criminal justice system: the impact on gender - Essay Example

? Social control and discretion in the criminal justice system: The impact on gender Introduction The term social control refers to the social and political processes which control the behaviours of the individuals or groups. Since man is a social animal, he lives in groups. While living as part of a group, he cannot behave like animals. In other words, a person needs to live in accordance not only with his own preferences/ interests but also with the society’s preferences and interests. Discretion on the other hand is the right of a person to act based on own judgements. Social control and discretion are important terms in criminal justice system. This paper analyses Social control and discretion in terms of criminal justice system and its impact on gender. The problem with social control and discretion Social control helps societies to streamline the functioning of an individual or group in such a way that the rights of the individuals and the groups are well protected whereas discretion helps people to protect their interests. It is difficult for social control and discretion to travel in parallel direction always. In other words, one’s discretion to do certain things may not be in line with the social norms and principles. No two individuals are alike either physically or mentally. Because of the differences in mental processes, different people think differently. The rights of one person need not be the right of the other person. Same way the wrongs of one person need not be the wrongs for other people. It is impossible for a society to safeguard the interests of two people who have contrasting opinions or perceptions about a particular topic. For example, in the case of a rape crime, the offender tries to satisfy his needs. On the other hand, the victim suffers lot of humiliation while the offender satisfies his needs. In other words, the needs of the offender and the victim in this case are totally different or the rights of the offender and the victim are entirely different in this case. No criminal justice system can stay away from punishing the offender in this case, citing the rules related to discretion. In this case the victim and the offender have contrasting discretions and therefore a criminal justice system cannot take decisions based on discretion in this case. Social norms or principles will be taken as the base point in this case by the criminal justice system. Christians consider Jesus Christ as their saviour whereas Muslims consider Prophet Mohammad as their saviour. Hindus believe that the concept of saviour is illogical and people get rebirths after deaths and this process will continue infinitely till a person does enough good things to get salvation. It should be noted that UK is a country in which plenty of people from different religions are staying together. Because of globalization, people from different parts of the world are currently migrating to UK. In UK, it is the discretion of a person to believe in a particular religion. However, he may not have the right to ridicule the beliefs of others while living in a diverse UK society. Criminal justice system in UK like secular democratic countries is keen in safeguarding the interests and beliefs of all the people irrespective of the religion in which they belong. There are plenty of situations in which the society knowingly or unknowingly encourages rule breaking. Situations where social control contributes to, or even generates, rule-breaking behaviour include: Escalation (by taking enforcement action, authorities unintentionally encourage rule breaking); Nonenforcement (by strategically taking no enforcement action, authorities intentionally permit rule breaking) and Covert facilitation (by taking hidden or deceptive enforcement action, authorities intentionally encourage rule breaking) (Marx, 1999) For example, drug abuse is prohibited in UK. However, plenty of people in UK are drug addicts at present. “Forty years after the introduction of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, more than 2.8 million people report using illicit drugs every year in England and Wales”(Travis, 2011). UK public has access to drugs from illegal channels. In this case, one can say that the prohibition of drug abuse by the criminal justice system or escalation encourage people to violate laws and purchase drug from illegal channels. Of course drug use or abuse is the discretion of a person. However, when he causes troubles to others under the influence of drug, he is doing something against the interests of the society and criminal justice system. Muslims do believe that having more than one wife is not a sin. In other words, sex with multiple partners is not prohibited in Islamic culture. It is difficult to punish a person who is having multiple wives in Islamic countries. It should be noted that in UK like Christian dominated countries, keeping more than one wife is a sin or crime. Nonenforcement of laws helps people to break norms of criminal justice system in this case. It is the discretion of a person to keep one or more wives. Moreover, it is the discretion of the person to establish legal relationships with others. However, while doing so, he must ensure that he is not violating any social norms. It should be noted that no wife would like to see her husband establish relations with other women through illegal channels. Of course, he can establish relations with multiple sex partners if he stays away from any formal relationships. In certain cases, the authorities say something publicly and work exactly against it privately. UK is a country which declared that they are keen in wiping off terrorism from this world. However, they did not join hands with America in war on terror to fight against terrorism. This is a clear example of Covert facilitation. In other words, criminal justice system in UK is not free from the influences regional interests. It is difficult for UK to join hands with America to fight against terrorism, especially at a time when UK’s economy is dipping due to recession. Public confidence in policing is receiving increasing attention from UK social scientists and policy-makers. Drawing on data from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey and the 2006/2007 London Metropolitan Police Safer Neighbourhoods Survey, people think about their local police in ways less to do with the risk of victimisation and more to do with judgements about social cohesion and moral consensus. Across England and Wales the police are not primarily seen as providers of a narrow sense of personal security, held responsible for crime and safety. Instead the police stand as symbolic ‘guardians’ of social stability and order, held responsible for community values and informal social controls (Dr Jackson, n.d. p.2) The above findings clearly suggest that UK police is more particular in safeguarding the interests of the society or groups than the interests of the individuals. British authorities are well aware of the necessities of safeguarding the interests of the group over and above that of the individuals. Individuals may have different opinions on different matters. It is impossible for the police forces in UK to honour all those individual opinions. Individual opinions and interests are always selfish in nature and a public agency like police can never work for the safeguarding to such interests. There are plenty of incidents in which white and black criminals treated differently by police, in courts and in prisons in UK. This is because of the waves of racial discrimination still prevailing in UK. Even for the same crime committed, blacks and whites get different punishments in courts. In short, some kind of prejudices and biases are leading police, courts and the prison authorities across the world. It should be noted that a person steals thousand dollars may get imprisonment whereas people who steals billions are escaping from punishments. White collar criminals are always smart enough to escape from punishments. The effort to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a philosophical dilemma for agents of social control- the balance between the principle of uniformity (similar offenders should get similar sanctions) vs. Individualized justice (social control agents should have the discretion to tailor sanction the particular characteristics and situations of individual offenders (Ulmer, 1997, p.3). Courts often take decisions about a crime based on the evidences. In other words, criminals can escape from punishments if they were smart enough to avoid leaving any evidences at the crime sight. Moreover, if the criminals are able to seek the services of expert counsels, they can escape from the punishments. It should be noted that former US president Bill Clinton escaped from punishment even though it was evident to many that he had illegal affairs with Monica Lewinsky. In this case, Clinton’s charisma as US president and his abilities to generate clever arguments convinced the court and he escaped from getting severe punishment. At the same time, many people believe that Saddam Hussein never got a fair trial in courts and forced to sacrifice his life because of the court’s discretion to punish him. The impact of social control and discretion on gender Criminal justice system often treats crimes committed by women slightly different than the crimes committed by men. According to Bickel and Peterson (1991), Women receive more lenient treatment than men from criminal justice system because of the attempts of courts to protect weaker sex from harsh sanctions (Bickel and Peterson, 1991). However, this leniency is not dispersed evenly across cultures. In other words, in some cultures, women get more leniencies whereas in other cultures, they are not getting any leniency from criminal justice system. For example, women criminals in UK are not getting any leniency from criminal justice system or police. The following statistics substantiate this argument. Although most female arrests are made for status offenses, between 1992 and 1996, the number of female violent crime arrests increased by 25%. However, the number of arrests made for male offenders during this time remained the same. Similarly, the number of female arrests made for violent crimes increased by 125% between 1989 and 1993. During this four year span, arrest rates for boys only rose by 67%. Although the female arrest rates are increasing, this does not mean that crime itself is increasing. The juvenile justice system, in recent years, has been paying close attention to the female criminal and has therefore been detecting an abundance of female criminality. With the emergence of the female criminal, gender bias has become an increasingly prevalent issue in the juvenile justice system (Reimer, 2002, p.3). Women all over the world are often treated as a commodity rather than a human and the case of UK is also not an exception. Male domination is visible still in UK societies even now even though the societies advanced a lot. Female nudity is exploited by product advertisers in UK also. Moreover, violence against women in UK is often labelled as a way of maintaining social control. Artz (N.d) pointed out that “The use of violence against women as a method of social control can take many forms: rape, domestic violence, forced prostitution and sexual slavery, forced impregnation and pregnancies, pornography female genital mutilation and femicide” (Artz, N.d., p.173). Marx’s theory of exploitation extends very naturally to the social relations of patriarchy. Patriarchy and the bourgeois family system embody exploitation of women, within the household and within the workplace. Finally, Marx’s strong moral commitment to the overriding importance of social equality is directly relevant to a socialist feminist critique of contemporary society. The unequal status and treatment of women is an affront to the value of human equality. Thus Marx’s principles lay the ground for a formulation of a socialist feminism. Perhaps, Marxism is the first political or social ideology which showed courage to question the social inequalities with respect to gender. Traditionally, women treated differently in the society because of the dominance of men virtually in every segment of human life. Marx argued that women play a vital role in the sustainment of a healthy society and they should not be treated differently. In his opinion, in family, society and in workplace the contributions of women cannot be neglected. Explanations “Theory of social control elaborates on the onus that is shared by society and devised control mechanisms to ensure a safe social arena, one that is devoid of any type of delinquency”(Borade, 2012). It is difficult to have an ideal society in which all people behave equally well. As mentioned earlier, individuals’ differences and differences in beliefs motivate people to behave in different manner. For example, some Islamic fundamentalists believe that killing of enemies of Islam is a sacred act whereas Christians and Hindus believe that all kinds of killing are inhuman acts or sins. These contradictions in beliefs may force individuals to use misuse their discretion authorities. A society can never function effectively when its members tend to use discretion increasingly. Individual discretion has least importance in front of the group’s discretion as far as a society is concerned. In other words, individual preferences should give way for the preferences of a society to help the society to progress properly. According to Booth (2011), “Social control theory asserts that strong social bonds inhibit delinquency, whereas weak bonds offer little resistance to offending. The type and magnitude of social bonds have differing effects on male and female delinquency” (Booth, 2011). In a healthy society, the bondage between different elements is stronger than that in an unhealthy society. For example, family relationships are stronger in Indian societies compared to that in UK society. In India, old people are staying with their children during their end of life situations and they are getting enough support from all their family members when they need it. It is a custom in Indian families to help the older generation by the younger ones. On the other hand, family relationships are getting weaker and weaker in UK because of various reasons and the older generation is struggling to get enough love and care from their family members when they approach their end of life situations. It should be noted that marriage like social institutions are getting less popularity nowadays in UK. Instead of marriage, modern life styles such as staying together or same sex marriages are getting more popularity in UK. Because of these modern life principles, the bondage between family members is getting weaker and the commitments of people with respect to their blood relations to others are getting lessened. In 1990, Michael Gottfredson and Hirschi published A General Theory of Crime which emphasized variations in “self-control” established at a relatively early age and variations in opportunity to commit crimes as the keys to understanding most empirical regularities in criminality. They argued that the crimes people could commit varied by age, but that the individual “tendency” to do so is a product of self-control established in interaction with parents and others during childhood. People low in self-control are “free to enjoy the quick and easy and ordinary pleasures of crime without undue concern for the pains that follow from them. People who learn to “consider the long term consequences of their acts” have “self-control” (Gary, 2003, p.13) Plenty of sociologists are of the view that self-control is a trait which can be inherited as well as developed. In other words, both heredity and the environment play vital roles in the development of self-control. Children of parents with sound self-control may have inherited traits of self-control. Same way if parents control the development of their children well during childhood, such children may exhibit better self-control in future. Children of robbers may become robbers in future in all probabilities. Same way, children of saints, may become saints most of the times, even though there are certain exceptions. In short, the role of parents in developing self-control in the minds of the children is unquestionable. In fact children learn to avoid antisocial behaviour from their parents. “Low self-control” is identified as the “natural” state and actions that hurt others need no special motivational explanation” (Gary, 2003, p.13). Morality and ethics are getting diminished from the contemporary society as time goes on. People feel less guilty consciousness while they commit crimes nowadays. It should be noted that belief in religion and ethics in the past were more than that at present. In fact religion plays a vital role in maintaining higher levels of ethical standards in the society. Many people have the belief that the aim of all social control theories is to eliminate or control crimes in a society. Apart from eliminating crimes, social control theories help people to develop in the right direction. It should be noted that development or advancements in living standards may not be visible in a society where criminals or terrorists rule. For example, Pakistan and Columbia are countries which are infamous for terrorism and drug trafficking respectively. Developments in these countries are negligible. On the other hand, Pakistan’s neighbouring countries India and China are developing rapidly because of the absence or lack of crimes in their societies or countries. Conclusions Social control and discretion are two sociological terms which is connected with criminal justice system in many ways. A society needs proper control over its members to avoid antisocial behaviours developed as a result of individual discretions. Individuals constitute groups and groups constitute society. The interests of individuals and that of the groups could be entirely different. However, it is the duty of the individuals and the groups to work in accordance with the social norms so that healthy standards can be maintained in the society. Criminal justice system plays an important role in maintaining good standards in the society. However, there are plenty of incidents in which criminal justice system has taken decisions based on prejudices and biases. Women seem to be a major community in all societies which receive unfair treatments. Even though Marxism like political ideologies tried a lot to raise the standards of livings of the women community, still women are suffering serious discrimination in the society. The sustainment of morality and ethics in the society is extremely important in the progress of a society towards civilization. References Artz, L. n.d. The weather watchers: gender, violence and social control. [Online] Available at: http://hsrcpress.ac.za [Accessed 11 May 2012] Bickel, G.S. and Peterson, R.D. 1991. The impact of gender based family roles on criminal sentencing. [Online] Available at: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/socprob38&div=32&id=&page= [Accessed 11 May 2012] Booth, J.A. 2011. Social Control, Serious Delinquency, and Risky Behavior A Gendered Analysis [Online] Available at: http://cad.sagepub.com/content/54/3/423.abstract [Accessed 11 May 2012] Borade, G. 2012. Theory of Social Control [Online] Available at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/theory-of-social-control.html [Accessed 11 May 2012] Dr Jackson, J. N.d. Crime, Policing and Social Order: On the Expressive Nature of Public Confidence in Policing. [Online] Available at: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/methodologyInstitute/pdf/JonJackson/BJS.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012] Gary, J.F. 2003. Social Control Theories. [Online] Available at: http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/soccon.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012] Marx, G.T. 1999. Ironies of Social Control: Authorities as Contributors to Deviance Through Escalation, Nonenforcement and Covert Facilitation. [Online] Available at: http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/ironies.html [Accessed 11 May 2012] Reimer, A. 2002. Gender Bias in the Juvenile Justice System. [Online] Available at: http://www.unh.edu/sociology/media/pdfs-journal2008/Reimer1EDITED.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012] Travis, A. 2011. Drugs and the law: state of confusion. The Guardian, Thursday 2 June 2011 Ulmer, J.T. 1997, Social Worlds of Sentencing: Court Communities Under Sentencing Guidelines. SUNY Press, 01-Sep-1997 Read More