Victimization paradox means unwarranted singling out of a person or a group of people for subjection of crime. Many people usually fear to be victimized by criminal activities they are exposed to in their day to day interactions. The most vulnerable groups to this problem are women, children, disabled and minority groups (Fletcher, 2008).
Victimization paradox makes people be concerned about their safety. As a result, they will make important decisions to improve their security. Fear of crime prevents a person from committing any offences, and thus, facilitates the tasks of the law enforcers.
At the same time, those who have already been victimized will be subjected to fear. They may think that they will always be targeted. Therefore, it should be upon individuals to ensure that they are always safe. If they can change their minds and stop offending others, the life will be better. As a result, everyone will be confident and move from one place to another. However, people should not be so paradoxical in their view. Many researchers have found out that people behave contradictory to what the situation implies (Fletcher, 2008). It is quite paradoxical for the least vulnerable groups to be deeply fearful. Instead, they should be confident because they have never been victimized in the past.
2. Define the term ‘displacement’ and provide some examples of the various types of displacement.
Displacement, as used in the judicial system, means change of crime from one offence, place, tactics or target to another. This happens as a result of the crime prevention initiatives used. When carrying out investigations, the investigators should know that there are high chances of the occurrence of crime in the presence of a motivated offender; suitable targets and the absence of capable preventers (Fletcher, 2008). Otherwise, removing one or more of these factors will automatically reduce the chances of the occurrence of crime.
Types of Displacement
The major types of crime displacement include the following:
Temporal displacement occurs when the offenders decide to alter the time at which they commit a crime. Meaning, they can shift the period when the criminal offence is carried out.
This occurs if he offenders change their targets. Because of the changing situations, criminals may opt to shift from one target to another. For instance, an offender may decide to stop attacking people in his home town and relocate to a neighboring district of province (Fletcher, G.P., 2008). In such a situation, it may be hard to trace them, particularly if this change is constantly done.
Target displacement happens when the offender decides to shift from one type of target to another. This means that an offender may opt to change from aiming at the young, poor, people of black origin, foreigners to the old, rich, people of white origin or locals respectively. For instance, many cyber café criminals are now shifting their target from young adults to the unsuspecting teenagers and the elderly.
In this situation, the offenders change their method of operation. For instance, if they were picking, they graduate to burglary, robbery, car hijacking or kidnapping. This will be carefully selected to suit their plans.
3. Describe the central features of the due process and the crime control perspective.
Due process refers to the legal requirement which stipulates that the government is obliged to respect all the rights of a person. As a judicial requirement, it balances individual rights and the power of the law (Kadish, 2007). Therefore, it means that when taking actions to reduce crime in the country, the state should not harm any person without following the due process of law.
Characteristics of the Due Process
Some of the major features of the due process include, but not limited to the following:
4. Explain why the criminal justice system is characterized as a non-system.
Criminal justice non- system refers to the competitive organization of the judicial system in the pursuit of producing justice in the society. Non system is a very important aspect of the judicial system since it helps the judicial officers to work in a well guided manner as they serve people.
To begin with, it helps in eliminating possible conflicts in the criminal justice system that may arise as a result of the conduct of people. If people work in a cooperative manner, there will be a lot of conflicts arising due on the ground of competitions. Everyone will try their level best to be the most famous in the judicial system. However, if this guideline is adhered to, any of these obstacles will be dealt with.
At the same time, judicial offers may conflict because of personal interests. For instance, a criminal justice can be hindered if there is a conflict between the police officers and the prison officials. While it is the work of the policemen to arrest and investigate a suspected crime, the prison wardens and other officials are concerned about overseeing the welfare of the prisoners. In this case, a conflict of interest may arise if the police deliberately decide to arrest people in order to fill the available prison spaces (Kadish, S.H., 2007). This can lead to congestion. On the other hand, the prison officers may decide to release inmates because of congestion. When doing this, they will all be attracting public attention. This kind of competition can be classified as unhealthy.
Lastly, non- system is the surest way of promoting justice to the suspects. If all the judicial officers can work in an autonomous manner, every section will not feel suppressed, especially if practicing cooperation. Otherwise, there will be a lot of public cry in case any group decides to deviate from the norm. For example, if police the officers investigating crime decide to coerce suspects to accept criminal allegations so as to appear to be having a high ranking in solving crime, they will be unjust. Therefore, it is important for the judicial officers to observe this guideline. As Jerome Skolnick argues, instead of the police officers competing, they should focus on appearing to perform their duty, rather than on actually performing their duty.
5. Kathy Doherty case
Any judge presiding over Kathy’s case, would have convicted her. However, before sentencing her, he would base his decision on the major goals of crime control in the United States of America (USA). As stated by John Worrall, he will rule over Kathy’s case in mind that will help in preventing further crime and its possible consequences to the larger American society.
It will also help in eliminating the use of cocaine and other illegal drugs. If this is done, the lives of many people, especially children, will change. In fact, it complies with the Children’s Protection Act In the long run, there will be a conducive environment for all.. Besides, it will act as a lesson to any other offender, who may be willing to do the same (Bernstein, 2011).
Because Kathy is convicted for two crimes, she has to be subjected to two kinds of sentences running simultaneously, that is to refund all the money she stole and pay a fine of up to 40% of the US $. 4,200 she is convicted of stealing. However, for the felony drug charges, she has to be sentenced to community punishment. Imprisonment would not be a right measure of punishment, because her offense is not serious. After all, she was not trafficking, but only had a small portion of the drug for her own use. Therefore, she will serve the community under the vigilance supervision (Bernstein, 2011).
At the same time, she has to attend rehabilitation courses in the nearest rehab centre. Otherwise, if she fails to pay the fine, she would be imprisoned for a period not more than 12 months. This light sentence is in line with the law. Furthermore, Kathy is a first time offender. Her records are still clean.