The Code Of Hammurabi Of Mesopotamia
The code of Hammurabi of Mesopotamia dates back to 1754 BC when the 6th Babylonian King Hammurabi, made judgement on civil, family, inheritance, crime etc. and many other decisions which were written down in order to enforce laws and rules as to how people should behave and conduct themselves. The 282 laws influenced that area for thousands of years and have even drifted into our own into parts of our very own existing legal codes. In fact Hammurabi is edged into the Supreme Court building in Washington DC.
When people commit a crime they are sent to prison and sentenced according to the crime they committed. Crimes can range from drug convictions, petty crimes to heinous crimes such as murder. There is also the case of a small percent of offenders associated with recidivism due to the longer lengths of time spent in prison and the relationship behind it. The assumption is that prisoners serving short sentences have a far better chance of being rehabilitated once they get out of jail, can find employment and integrate quickly back into …show more content…
society, have family relationships, community involvement and enter back into society with ease. However, those serving longer sentences become disconnected from their communities, lose out on opportunities as they become institutionalized which promotes recidivism.
Another issue with incarceration are the costs associated with putting people in prison.
Criminals involved in minor crimes such as nonviolent drug charges can be sent to rehabilitation centers which are far less expensive than prison and save tax payers money. Not everyone is a criminals and some have psychological issues related to the environment they are living. Some claim by increasing the certainty of a punishment might deter certain actions such as drinking and driving especially during holidays by having the presence of police officers patrolling the streets and highways in order to not get fined, lose their licence and demerit points. When it comes to punishment involving human trafficking, this might deter some people due to the consequences and severity of the sentence. We can argue that prisoners under the influence of drugs do not fit in any of these categories due to them being under the influence due to
impairment.
Crime rates have dropped from 1990 but reports of heinous and violent crimes are in the media all the time which produces unbalanced interpretation of crime figures. Incarceration does not always work in the case of sending innocent youth who might be surrounded by real criminals and might learn bad habits or join gangs. Youth are vulnerable and very impressionable and engaging in certain behaviours could have negative long-term effects. Rehabilitation is the answer as opposed to incarceration and if the government could spend more money on treatment than building more jails not only would save society money, but focusing on the victims by not ignoring them. In any enlightening society, there is no eye for an eye and punishment is not an end in its self. Most people affected are those at a disadvantage in society and resorted to crime not by choice and need help in order for them to change and not re-offend.
When people commit a crime they are sent to prison and sentenced according to the crime they committed. Crimes can range from drug convictions, petty crimes to heinous crimes such as murder. There is also the case of a small percent of offenders associated with recidivism due to the longer lengths of time spent in prison and the relationship behind it. The assumption is that prisoners serving short sentences have a far better chance of being rehabilitated once they get out of jail, can find employment and integrate quickly back into …show more content…
society, have family relationships, community involvement and enter back into society with ease. However, those serving longer sentences become disconnected from their communities, lose out on opportunities as they become institutionalized which promotes recidivism.
Another issue with incarceration are the costs associated with putting people in prison.
Criminals involved in minor crimes such as nonviolent drug charges can be sent to rehabilitation centers which are far less expensive than prison and save tax payers money. Not everyone is a criminals and some have psychological issues related to the environment they are living. Some claim by increasing the certainty of a punishment might deter certain actions such as drinking and driving especially during holidays by having the presence of police officers patrolling the streets and highways in order to not get fined, lose their licence and demerit points. When it comes to punishment involving human trafficking, this might deter some people due to the consequences and severity of the sentence. We can argue that prisoners under the influence of drugs do not fit in any of these categories due to them being under the influence due to
impairment.
Crime rates have dropped from 1990 but reports of heinous and violent crimes are in the media all the time which produces unbalanced interpretation of crime figures. Incarceration does not always work in the case of sending innocent youth who might be surrounded by real criminals and might learn bad habits or join gangs. Youth are vulnerable and very impressionable and engaging in certain behaviours could have negative long-term effects. Rehabilitation is the answer as opposed to incarceration and if the government could spend more money on treatment than building more jails not only would save society money, but focusing on the victims by not ignoring them. In any enlightening society, there is no eye for an eye and punishment is not an end in its self. Most people affected are those at a disadvantage in society and resorted to crime not by choice and need help in order for them to change and not re-offend.