in black and white
Main menu
Share a book About us Home
Biology Business Chemistry Computers Culture Economics Fiction Games Guide History Management Mathematical Medicine Mental Fitnes Physics Psychology Scince Sport Technics

Fraud Exprosed Whot you Dont Could Cost your company millions - Joseph W.

Joseph W. Fraud Exprosed Whot you Dont Could Cost your company millions - Wiley Publishing, 2003. - 289 p.
ISBN: 0-471-27475-5
Download (direct link): fraudexposedwhatyoudont2003.pdf
Previous << 1 .. 11 12 13 14 15 16 < 17 > 18 19 20 21 22 23 .. 147 >> Next

Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States, spoke on behalf of many “root cause” theorists in his 1970 book, Crime in America. Among the major factors he saw promoting social dysfunction and crime increases were population growth, concentration of minorities and the poor into slums, economic disparities, poor housing, lack of adequate social assistance, disease, despair, mental retardation, lack of proper education, discrimination, and unemploy-ment.22 Interestingly, advances in medicine and the ability to better understand the functioning of the human brain have also contributed to more recent developments in “root cause” theory. Malcolm Gladwell, in a 1997 New Yorker article called “Damaged,” cited medical studies and research as providing indications that some violent criminals have suspicious histories of child abuse, brain injuries, and psychotic symptoms that may explain some of their subsequent acts.23
Clark and Gladwell have somewhat abundant company. One of the more vociferous root cause advocates appears to be criminology and sociology Professor Richard Moran, of Mount Holyoke College. He contends that a new factory in a neighborhood does more to reduce crime than anything the police do, and he is especially dismissive of the effectiveness of the tactics associated with community policing and other law enforcement innovations of the 1970s onward. He argues that such efforts were merely a rain dance, and when it began to rain, credit was wrongly given to the dancers, the police. He believes that while crime did decrease during this period it was due to an improved economy, the lessening of the crack wars, and increased periods of incarceration for young offenders. To support his position, he notes that one of the poorest cities in the country, East St. Louis, Illinois, had an even sharper drop in crime during this period than did New York City, but the police there introduced no new programs. Indeed, he contends, due to budget constraints, the police department in East St. Louis often lacked enough gasoline to keep all its cars running.24
Others have been less accepting of the root causes explanation, noting that for much of the last half of this century various members of the learned classes in both the United States and Europe have marched in a sort of mental lock-step to place the blame for crime in every conceivable place but the offenders hand.
While their prostelyzing has certainly colored the debate on the subject and likely affected the thinking of judges, legislators and others key to the criminal justice system, it has also not gone unnoticed by the very persons who cause the criminal justice system to exist in the first place—the offenders. Some believe we may have inadvertently schooled several generations of offenders with the idea that their acts are not really their fault.25
Russell Kirk offers a historical perspective on the utility of the “root causes” argument, noting:
The meliorists of the Nineteenth Century took it for granted that by a century after their time—by the year 1982, say—violent criminality would be virtually extinguished through universal schooling, better housing, better diet, general prosperity, improved measures for public health, and the like. They assumed that capital punishment was a relic of a barbarous and superstitious age. Capital punishment, they thought, was merciless; and they were themselves evangels of mercy. Their intellectual descendants did succeed, by the 1950s, in abolishing the death penalty throughout most of the civilized world.
But they did not succeed in abolishing hideous crimes of the sort formerly named “capital.” In the most affluent of great countries, the United States, the rate of serious crimes rose most steadily and rapidly. At a time when the need for restraints upon criminality appeared to be greater than before, penalties were diminished. All this was done in the name of mercy.26
One is tempted to speculate if the meliorists would argue today that the benefits they associated with a prosperous society have simply not reached those who commit serious crimes, or if they would take the tack that they have done so, but there is still a relative imbalance that fuels antisocial behavior. If the latter, we are left to ponder how to achieve a completely level playing field in a free society.
Stanmeyer comments on this question in his 1983 article, “Making Criminal Justice Work”:
Short of improving the personal character of an overwhelming majority of its citizens—a gradual task even harder than improving their economic well-being—there is little that government can do through indirect means that will have an early impact on the crime problem. To “abolish poverty” will not in turn abolish crime; during the Depression years poverty was high but crime was low; whereas in the last decade wealth was widespread but crime was spreading even more widely.27
Robert Kelly, likewise, has written of his interviews with numerous inmates in the Central Punitive Segregation Unit in New York City’s Riker’s Island prison. He notes that many inmates offer a surprisingly varied range of excuses or rationalizations for their acts:28
Previous << 1 .. 11 12 13 14 15 16 < 17 > 18 19 20 21 22 23 .. 147 >> Next