Cap Stone Project 3

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Instructor

Course

Date
1) Criminology Theory

(a) Self- control Theory: Criminology theory are theories that map directly onto legal

doctrines, breach of duty, and causation. They help people gain understanding about

corruption and criminal justice. They include self-control theory and routine activities

theory. Self-control philosophy is also called the universal theory of crime. The

Theory highlights that individual are not inherently felonious or associated with crime.

Individuals vary in how they have established self-control and join the controls in their

crimes. The elements of self-control include deterring gratification, a propensity to be

cautious and hardworking, intellectual ability, and compassion towards others

According to Gottfredson, they realize that delinquency can only occur when the

Inclination for crime matches with a chance to do so. The Inclination of unlawful

behavior is a consequence of low self-discipline which grows early in an individual's

life. Lack of self-discipline occurs when parenthoods fail to sufficiently teach their

offspring. Individuals who have established sufficient self-discipline will find it easier

to resist desires to commit crimes. Individuals who lack self-discipline tend to struggle

for cash without doing work, sex without dating, and vengeance without court delays.

The self-control theory tries to explain all forms of crimes. Self-discipline is the key

that guards the individual from engaging in criminal activities. Lack of self-control

can make a person engage in any immoral crime.

(b) Routine Activity Theory: Routine activity's philosophy expounds that lawbreaker

can choose whether or not to bind with the law. This is based on their access to an

appropriate target and their occurrence. It narrates the design of offending the

everyday designs of social communication. It also explains that crime is usual and

only depends on the accessible chances to offend. If the opportunity presents itself,

people can commit the crime. It works on the assumption that delinquency can be
 committed by everyone who has the chance. It states that individuals choose to be

victim-based by not associating themselves with places where crime can be easily

committed. People select whether or not to obligate delinquencies based on their

admission to an appropriate target and their occurrence. Cohen and Felson developed

the routine activities theory. It focuses on three key things. Potential lawbreaker, a

suitable aim, and the absence of a capable custodian. He further explains that these

must come together for criminal activity to occur. One of the primary criticisms of the

routine activity theory is that it relies on the assumption that offenders are balanced in

their decision-making. The theory makes an assumption that any person can commit

crimes as long the opportunities present itself. It is true that any person is a potential

law breaker but we cannot ride on assumptions we need hard fact.

2) Legal Theory

a) Legal Positivism: Legal Theory denotes theoretical education of the law. It is a very

crucial subject in the study of law. It institutes philosophies and the form of rules that

are enforceable in the account of law. The philosophy is essential because it aids the

exerciser in understanding the ecosphere, they are living in. Legal Theory majorly

concerns what is happening outside the courts and what is within the courts. It

empowers the lawyers to confront the bias in our legal system. Legal Positivism this of

the leading theories of the nature of law. It states that existence and law content

depend on social facts. The approach helps understand and interpret the law rooted in

Jurisprudence. It helps explain disintegrating law as a separate field from the other

fields, such as ethical and social concerns. According to John Austin, he tries to

divorce law from other subjective elements such as ethics and social responsibility.

Legal Positivism has a basic foundation principle on which it is founded; the law is

knowledge by a human autonomous. The law is distinct from ethics and has no moral
 attachments whatever. The author gives an elaborate highlight that Law is distinct

from the ethics. He tries to separate law from the personal and the social ethics. Law

exists on itself and it is independent of the social factors

b) Judicial Review of legislation: The study of law should be intentional definitely and

not normatively; this will help avoid a lot of unrealistic assumptions. The study of law

is separate from the historical analysis. The key emphasis is that the legal system is

self-sufficient, and when it comes to making decisions, it does not have to rely upon

social concerns; or people's behavior. Judicial review of legislation is the ability of the

court to declare a legislative act in violation of the constitution. It is also known as the

Court appeal. The primary purpose of this Theory is to determine the legitimacy of the

cats of the executive and the legislative branches. In the case where the court ruled the

cases unfairly, it has the power to declare that constitutionally invalid. That helps to

establish justice in the courts of law. That law is practical and essential. It protects the

persons against state authority and ensures that administration, the public, and other

bodies are held answerable. Executive bodies are vital because they help to make the

law. If the conduct by the court is unreasonable and not satisfying, it will open room

for judicial review. The law has provided the remedy for it is called judicial review.

Therefore, the government or administrators must obey the law and have the authority

in law for their decisions. If they make decisions unlawfully, they will be fully

accountable.

3) Ethics

a) Accepting gifts: Ethics can be defined as a system of moral values; it helps

distinguish what is morally right or wrong through the underlaid principles both

individually or as a group. Ethics in criminal justice is essential. The criminal justice

cannot fulfill every desire of everyone. The purpose of the system is to punish the evil
 and ensure the crime are appropriate for their losses. Ethics is very important is it

helps provide both the accused and the victims with a balanced application. This study

will focus on accepting gifts and the noble cause of corruption. Accepting gifts, the

supremum court justice is generally permitted to accept gifts. Unlike other members of

the statehouse, they are not permitted to accept gifts. Accepting the gifts under certain

circumstances gifts are ethical. Accepting the gifts is justifiable when promoting

benefice principles and avoiding harm to particular clients. Gifts have suffered

grounds of contention because they may influence individual decisions. There are

some principles behind accepting gifts. First, you must consider your relationship.

They must be offered in a personal relationship when the employee's motivation is not

for official favor; a family member pays for the gift. The gift should less than $ 50 a

year from one source. The gifts are based on the outside relationship, such as travel

related to the job interview. Also, awards and honorary degrees are acceptable. Before

you accept the gift, you should accept whether it would lead a person with integrity to

question their integrity. According to the government rules, the gift is considered in

the face of the market value and not the street value. That helps the employees to

determine whether the gift is acceptable or not. The employees should consider

whether the employee's opportunity to purchase a ticket at face value and the street

value does not exceed the face value.

b) Noble cause of corruption: Noble Cause of exploitation refers to circumstances

where the colonels bend the rules to achieve the right for a specific result. It is the

moral commitment to make your world a safer place. That is the motivation why most

people join law enforcement agencies. The most common category of exploitation is

taking bribes by individuals who engage in illegal things such as gambling,

prostitution, illegal consumption, and illegal use of drugs. Apart from taking bribes,
 there are forms of corruption such as nepotism, where the officials extend preferential

treatment to particular individuals. The favor may include access to a job or other

services. They may be closely related friends, family, or even associates. Corruption

has affected the members of society; many have been denied their rights and have

continued to suffer at the hands of the evil hands. They have allowed unethical

behavior to persist in our societies. Corruption has made our legal system to rot, and

corruption has become our day-to-day routine and culture. The leading cause of noble

corruption is greedy desires, higher levels of political monopolization, lower levels of

democracy, low press freedom, and low economic freedom. Our society today has

been engraved in this deadly pestilence. Our freedom and justice have been swallowed

by this monster.

4) Juvenile system

a) Parens Patriae: Juvenile Justice refers to a group of national and local-based

structures whose primary purpose is to answer to young people. Young people

transgress the law and are accused of breaking it. Children arrested and detained are

not given the protection they deserve but they are entitled to punishments like the

adults; they are charged with sentences. The Juvenile system is essential; it ensures

that children are not deprived of their rights. The Justice system is impended in stages;

delinquent behavior, referral, diversion, detention, adjudication, juvenile correction, or

waiver. Parens Patriae is a Latin word meaning the parent of the fatherland. The

judicial system law endows the intrinsic power of the government to defend the

children who are lawfully unable to act on their behalf. In the U.S., his law is applied

to protect mentally ill children. The supreme court is the supreme guardian of all

children. The administration of a state, temporary as Parens Patriae, can make choices

regarding the mentally ill children and cannot make decisions independently. The law
 protects children's interests such as health, comfort, and welfare. Parens Patriae is used

to the people who cannot take themselves, especially the disabled and the children.

The scope has enlarged to incorporate not only children but also needy adults as well

as disabled members of the society. Hence, older adults are qualified to be entitled to

this kind of care by the government. An excellent example of the Parens Patriae is the

modern Juvenile when custody of the children is temporarily taken away from the

parents' care. The children are kept under the care of the court until it determines the

child's interest.

b) Breed v. Jones: The historic supreme court verdict extended the double threat clause

to fit the modification to juvenile court records. The U.S supreme court held a two-

fold threat practical to the Juvenile who had violated the law. According to the law,

risk attaches when the accused is tested before the experimenter of facts when the

juvenile court starts to hear the evidence. That case came as a result of the 17year old

adult being arrested for violating the law. After the adjudicatory finding, it was

revealed that the defendant had desecrated the unlawful statute and he was inadequate

for the Juvenile; he violated the double risk. He was put under the juvenile court of

hearing. The primary purpose was to determine whether he had committed a crime

whose consequences included the inherent and the deprivation of many years. Despite

taking his case to the superior courts, the respondent had been tried in the Juvenile

courts. It shows he had violated the policies of the double jeopardy. The respondent

was subject to two trials for the same offense. He faced the risk of marshaling his

resources against the state and heavy personal strain. There is no constitutional

protection against the second trial, and society's interest must justify it. Granting the

respondent constitutional protection does not eliminate the flexibility and informality

of the juvenile court proceeding.

a) Week v. the United States: The officers are under limitations in exercising their

authority and expertise to protect the individuals, their households, and their

credentials against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the worth amendment,

this protection is granted to all people whether they have committed a crime or not. A

law enforcement officer arrested the defendant without a warrant at the Union of the

Kansas City, where an express company had employed him. The police went into the

week's house and having been informed by the neighbor where to fetch the key; they

broke into his house. They searched the house and took ownership of the various

documents and traineeships offered to the United States law officer. Later, the

marshals also went into the house and searched and carried away certain letters.

Neither the police nor Marshall had the warrant letters. The court denied defendant the

appeal to overpower the indication of the warrantless explorations of his room. The

Supreme Court took firm that the pieces of literature in question were reserved from

the defendant household by lawful officers, direct abuse of the constitutional human

rights. They returned to the court and gave the law court the right to return. The police

officers did not act under any claim of the federal authority regarding the unauthorized

seizure.

b) Mapp v. Ohio: This case was heard on 20 June 1961. It was an extreme case which
th

initiated in Cleveland. The United States Supreme law court, underneath the fourth

and the 14 legal amendments, unlawfully seized defendant the indication of state
th

unlawful test. It makes it illegal for the evidence, the law officers got into illegal ways

without authorization and this is a criminal test in a state law court. The high court

said that the evidence was seized illegally without the search authorization and thus

could not be used in a criminal suit. The law demands that police should have a valid
warrant before breaking into people premises. The case of the defendant was different

they stormed into his house, overpowered him and did vigorous research. They found

a bundle of pictures which they took to the court as a piece of evidence that he was a

criminal. The police revealed a trunk of images and detained Mapp. He was suspected

of possessing the pictures. The police colonels enforced their way into Dollree Mapp's

household without a suitable search permit. They had suspected that Mapp was a

bomber, and they commanded admission into his house. Mapp contended that the

police but they did not give in. He filed a case against such a violation of justice,

freedom and human rights. He accused the police of breaking the Fourth amendment’s

rights and took the petition to the Supreme Court that reigned in favor of Mapp.