Controversies in criminal justice

Criminal justices are never based on following a line of investigation and observed
evidences. The public is known to base its opinion on values and moral beliefs entirely (Scott
& Hirschi, 1988). There is need of acknowledging and confronting the subordinate
assumptions appealing in the controversies in the criminal justice. Some of the controversial
issues are the death penalties gun rights and gun control, marijuana legalization balance
between the due process and crime controls hate crimes law and prostitution
decriminalization (Neubauer, 2012).
These are just but the few cases. Beyond the public debates there are so many reasons
for crimes occurrences. In the justice field, they base their knowledge on two main things.
These are the facts and the evidences found at the site of the crime incidence. Controversies
arise due to the assumptions based on human nature (Neubauer, 2012).
When an issue has enough evidences and facts that the crime was committed by a
particular person then there would be no controversies .but this is to the professionals to the
general public and the students they cannot understand this due to the lack of understanding
and expertise in criminology (London, 2014). Whatever is controversial to the public most of
the times is actually not debatable to the criminologist.
According to my own ideology I would say that it is best for people not to rely on the
assumptions of human nature. This is because if one is cynical he or she will never be
surprised and if one is skeptical they will always be suspicious (Scott & Hirschi,1988). If one
responds with apathy then there would be no solutions. One should consider using readers
that are purposely designed to be in attendance of more than one side of a controversy and be
willing to experiment (Neubauer, 2012).
Gun rights vs. gun control

For many decades, Gun management has been a key controversial issue. It is believed
that if they enforced strictly rules in regard to gun control then there would be reduced cases
of crimes (London, 2014). Many people feel that they need to own a gun for the purpose of
their own protection and also for hunting purposes. This innocent people are later penalized
for enjoying sports or defending their own lives (Barak, 2007).
Enforcing rules pertaining gun control would mean to violation of the people
constitutional rights. Despite some citizens feeling the need to limit gun control as a way to
reduce crimes, this cannot be enforced since guns are needed for self defense cases (Scott &
Hirschi,1988). One would be violating the amendment of citizens rights to own guns if they
enforced strict rules towards gun control or rights to own a gun.
If violent crimes would truly reduce if guns were outlawed then I would agree with
them, however this is a true myth regarding to the situation. But anyway if guns got outlawed
the crimes that would want to use them would still attain them (Neubauer, 2012). Criminals
usually dont buy guns following the right procedures but rather they get them from the black
markets.
Secondary crimes are not caused as a result of people owning firearms but rather
peoples lack of respect to others lives and properties (Barak, 2007). There is a two step
process towards gun control. The first step is that if an individual wants to own a weapon he
or she goes to the shop and places an order later the government runs a background checkup
towards the past criminal activity and basis the right of the person to own the weapon or not.
Death penalty
This is reprimand by death or rather the death sentence. Crimes known to result to
death sentence are known as capital crimes. This is one major active controversy in lots of
states and countries all over the world. These positions vary within different political
ideologies and cultural practices (Scott & Hirschi, 1988).

Most historical records and tribes indicate that a death sentence was part of their
punishment towards the wrong doers. Human nature believes that God is the giver of lives
and the one that should take it away (Neubauer, 2012). Herby it is a wrong thing according to
human nature to be sentence to death but rather another punishment should be rather
administered to the wrong doer. But anyways different religions have different perspectives in
regard to this issue.
For instance, Islams agree on death sentences as a punishment to the wrong doer.
The modern way of using less painful or humane way of executing people is not justifiable
either according to my own opinion. Its rather better off to offer life imprisonment that
offering a death sentence.
Some of the sources that I found to be credible include; the Google books, previous
debates hold by different organizations and institutions and also the laws and doctrines of
countries that has death penalties as a criminal punishments (Scott & Hirschi,1988). These
sources can be relied on since they talk of real things that are currently happening in various
parts of the world.
Governments that allow these inhumane acts to prevail in their counties should come
up with better ways of punishing those found to be guilty of committing these types of
crimes. Developing sentences such as life imprisonment can be a suitable solution in solving
this crisis as no one would like to spend the rest of his life in jail as a result of committing a
crime.

Reference
Barak, G. (2007). Battleground: Criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
London, R. (2014). Crime, punishment, and restorative justice: A framework for
restoring trust. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

Neubauer, D. W. (2012). America's courts and the criminal justice system. Belmont,
CA [u.a.: Wadsworth [u.a..
Scott, J. E., & Hirschi, T. (1988). Controversial issues in crime and justice. Newbury
Park, Calif: Sage Publications.