Discuss About The Attitude Towards Crime Justice Management?
The literature review is on the legal systems that do not function properly without proper support from university students (Bateman, 2015). The criminal justice structure is important in the perceptions of them, as there is certain interdependency between the students as well as the criminal justice structure. It is based on the participation of the university students that includes willingness of the public in reporting crimes and participation of customers in the court process as well (Belknap, 2014). Braga, Papachristos & Hureau (2014), notes when there is dissatisfaction accounting the public regarding the performance of justice system and it can cause less willingness among customers to comply with various laws.
The aim and purpose is to analyze importance of attitude of publics towards punishment and crime. The research is essential as to analyze changes in attitude of public in societal level. Proper review is required as to provide dynamics to the attitude of the public towards the crime and justice as to analyze the future intervention programs.
The structure will be based on the different arguments that are been conducted in order to understand the different views of the public towards punishment and crime. The intervention strategies has to be implemented in such a manner wherein proper guidance can be provided to the criminals and punishments and justice are given accordingly as well.
Attitude towards crime and justice: Are University students Punitive
Tonry (2015) reviewed the findings that the system related to criminal justice has to be taken into account as the university students may not be punitive in nature towards the criminals. For instance- Yates (2016) examined that there was less support for the sentences that are prison based than it was expected in nature. Furthermore, the results from the British Crime Survey suggested that university students do not support construction of more prisons rather they support alternatives to imprisonment such as sentences that are community based (Belknap, 2014). However, on the other hand Braga, Papachristos & Hureau (2015) do not report same findings about the construction of imprisonments.
The other important question is the difference in the opinions of university students on the kinds of criminal offences. There can be huge possibility that students agree with punitive violent rather than the non-violent offences (Tonry, 2015). As a result, a survey was conducted as to understand the aspect of the individuals on criminal justice system.
Socio-Demographic Attitudes and Factors to Crime and Punishment
There are different studies that have been examined that included the socio-demographic class towards the punishment (Muncie, 2014). The findings also replicated that the university students were punitive oriented than the older respondents. Monahan, Steinberg & Piquero (2015) also examined about the differences in the opinions of male and female university students. However, Tankebe (2015) found there were no gender differences that support the interventions based on community as well as other opportunities related to employment. From the findings, it cannot be understood about the gender roles towards punishment attitudes as there are differences in the gender by some studies, on the other hand there is no gender discrimination as well.
Ideology and Attitudes to Punishment and crime
The ideological belief of the university students has pervasive impact on the social stimuli. Muncie (2014) conducted an important study wherein proper examination of the beliefs helped in understanding the influenced attitude towards justice and crime. The results that were generated helped in understanding the beliefs of the students towards the beliefs as well as predicted crimes and punishment. According to Reisig & Bain (2016), victimization has no such effect on the attitudes that are punitive in nature.
Media and attitude of university students towards crime and justice
With different members, especially the university students have easy access to the television and newspaper. There has been ample evidence that the conviction of the public is that the justice system is not tough enough that cannot help in development of strategies to replicate such findings.
Changing Attitudes towards crime and justice
According to Monahan, Steinberg & Piquero (2015), the relationship between the university students along with the media is complex in nature. In terms of the readership of newspaper, fear from crime results from the sensational stories that are presented in the local newspaper rather than in national newspaper (Miech et al., 2015). In summary, it can be concluded that the findings are correlational in nature. The different factors are responsible in designing the attitude of the punishments. The critical question arises wherein the attitudes that are changing are considerable in nature. The changing attitudes are essential in nature, as this will help in creating evidences that are influencing the behavior of the individuals.
Mandracchia, Shaw & Morgan (2013), criticism stimulated deal of research on the link related to the attitude and behavior of the university students. The researchers argued that in measuring the global attitudes, it resulted in the weakening of relationship between behavior and attitude. Therefore, specific measures need to be adopted rather than the global measures and it has to be employed as well. In marketing present paper, there has been an argument that has been raised wherein discrepancies are articulated as to analyze the findings related to the social science and opinion polls.
As noted, there are different kinds of students in the university holds different views on the designing of change in attitude towards the system of criminal justice (Goldson & Muncie, 2015). Therefore, the research work on the change in the attitude towards the crime and justice is critical in nature, as it would help in providing measurement of baseline upon which the intervention strategies are based. Proper strategies has to be implemented by the judicial in order to reduce the level of crime and there can be justice provided to the individuals who are getting punitive punishments.
In order to design the intervention strategies, proper nature of attitudes along with the function has to be determined properly (Crawford & Evans, 2016). The examples of functions of attitude provided by Eck & Weisburd (2015) are relevant to the paper. Firstly, the attitudes will serve as an instrumental function and such kind of attitudes help in assisting the individuals in navigating the social environment with the help of maximizing the rewards as well as avoiding negative consequences. A proper example of instrumental attitude towards crime and justice is the university students who hold punitive attitudes are due to fear of the crime. These kinds of individuals are motivated to avoid negative consequences in the environment.
Therefore, in order to design interventions related to attitude change, proper functions related to the attitude has to be considered by the university students. For instance- A change in attitude helps in focusing on the alleviating the fear of crime and that may not create desired impact on the university students who hold kind of attitudes for the reasons that are value expressive. The university students need to adopt proper idea towards the crime and justice, as this will help in providing justice towards the change in attitude along with the functions of the research that cannot be over emphasized as well.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the present paper helped in reviewing the attitude of the university students towards crime and justice. With the help of concerning question on the attitude of the students that are favorable in nature to the disposal punitive in nature of the offenders, there were majority of researchers who felt this is not the case all the time. However, the researcher identified some important demographic differences in the attitude of the students towards crime and justice. It is essential to be noted that influence on the demographics have huge influence on the crime and justice that is not direct in nature.
For instance- The university students supports the punitive criminal justice as compared to the elderly individuals. The research also reviewed interesting strategies on the intervention strategies wherein the university students adopted punitive strategies towards the offenders. Accordingly, proper understanding on the dynamics that are psychological in nature towards crime and justice is necessary before the strategies of intervention are designed.
Bateman, T. (2015). Trends in detected youth crime and contemporary state responses. economics.
Belknap, J. (2014). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Nelson Education.
Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633-663.
Crawford, T. A. M., & Evans, K. (2016). Crime prevention and community safety.
Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. L. (2015). Crime places in crime theory.
Goldson, B., & Muncie, J. (Eds.). (2015). Youth crime and justice. Sage.
Mandracchia, J. T., Shaw, L. B., & Morgan, R. D. (2013). What’s with the attitude? Changing auditing about criminal justice issues. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(1), 95-113.
Miech, R. A., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J., & Patrick, M. E. (2015). Trends in use of marijuana and attitudes toward marijuana among youth before and after decriminalization: The case of California 2007–2013. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(4), 336-344.
Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective. Crime and justice, 44(1), 577-619.
Muncie, J. (2014). Youth and crime. Sage.
Reisig, M. D., & Bain, S. N. (2016). University legitimacy and student compliance with academic dishonesty codes: A partial test of the process-based model of self-regulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 83-101.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. psychology, 51(1), 103-135.
Tonry, M. (Ed.). (2015). Crime and Justice, Volume 44: A Review of Research(Vol. 44). University of Chicago Press.
Yates, J. (2016). ‘Making a Raise’and ‘Dusting the Feds’: Contextualising Constructions of Risk and Youth Crime. In Communicating Risk (pp. 103-118). Palgrave Macmillan UK.