USA: +1 508 290 1604 
Sign in
QUESTION
The notion that crime can be reduced and prevented by manipulating pleasure and pain is at the foundation of conservative criminology. It would appear that in pursuit of this notion laws have been adjusted either with respect to the severity of punishment (3 strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing) or to the certainty of punishment (“zero tolerance” enforcement). Discuss your agreement or disagreement with such adjustments in laws and fully explain the specific formal theoretical basis of your response.
ANSWER
Evaluating Adjustments in Criminal Laws: The Conservative Criminology Perspective
Introduction
The notion that crime prevention can be achieved by manipulating pleasure and pain, a foundational principle of conservative criminology, has led to significant adjustments in criminal laws. These adjustments include measures like “three-strike” laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, and “zero tolerance” enforcement. In this essay, I will discuss my agreement or disagreement with these adjustments in laws, examining the specific formal theoretical basis of my response.
Three-Strike Laws and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Explanation
Three-strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing are aimed at deterring repeat offenders and ensuring that individuals convicted of certain crimes serve lengthy prison sentences. These laws prioritize the severity of punishment as a deterrent, assuming that the fear of a long prison term will discourage criminal behavior.
Disagreement
I disagree with the strict application of three-strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. The formal theoretical basis for my disagreement lies in the principles of proportionality and individualized justice. While these laws may deter some offenders, they often lead to excessively harsh sentences for non-violent, low-level offenders. This approach fails to consider the unique circumstances of each case and can result in unjust outcomes.
“Zero Tolerance” Enforcement
Explanation
“Zero tolerance” enforcement policies involve a strict approach to law enforcement, where any violation, no matter how minor, is met with immediate and severe consequences. This approach prioritizes the certainty of punishment as a deterrent, assuming that swift and harsh penalties will discourage criminal behavior.
Agreement
I partially agree with “zero tolerance” enforcement, but only in specific contexts. The formal theoretical basis for my agreement is rooted in the broken windows theory, which suggests that addressing minor offenses can help prevent more significant crimes. However, I believe that the application of “zero tolerance” should be judicious, focusing on quality-of-life offenses rather than punitive measures for minor transgressions.
Conclusion
The adjustments in criminal laws, driven by the conservative criminology perspective, raise important questions about the balance between punishment and deterrence. While I agree with the idea of swift consequences for certain offenses as a preventive measure, I disagree with the indiscriminate application of harsh penalties, such as three-strike laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. The formal theoretical basis for my response centers on principles of proportionality, individualized justice, and the need to consider the unique circumstances of each case. It is crucial to strike a balance between deterrence and fairness in the criminal justice system to ensure that laws are just and effective in reducing crime.
