Criminal Defense

with the uninterrupted rise of criminal equity and justice and criminology degree courses, the debate of why sure individuals are more likely to commit a criminal offence than others is being discussed by more students and in incrementing depth. Yet, can we actually predict who is set for a life of crime and expeditiously intervene in order to make the community, or country, or earth a safer place to live in?

understanding why individuals commit crime, and being able to work out who (or what kind of individuals) will become crooks is a thing that has underpinned criminology since it was founded in the 18th century. As an example, cesare lombroso was one of the primary to adopt a scientific approach in the field and proposed that the physical features of every person was an indicator as to the likelihood that they will commit crimes in later life.

of course, the idea that big jaws or high cheekbones could be related to criminality is dated today, but the notion that mutual characteristics – though more environmental, suchlike family dysfunction and poverty – can be spotted in those likely to commit offences later in life is a thing that certainly hushed and still exists in 21st century criminology.

it is prevalent also in the labour government’s approach to youth crime and crime preventative action, which puts identifying whether youths are likely to offend, and interfering when rudimentary and necessary, at the forefront of the agenda to cut crime. Yet, there are a few risks related with such divination and intervention – with so-called ‘false positives’ arising when children are wrongly singled-out as having the potential to commit crime but never do, and ‘false negatives’ referring to children wrongly being deemed low-peril.

data published in the report, ‘risky individuals or risky societies? Rethinking interventions for young adults in transition’ by richard garside focuses on the risks involved in predicting and interfering – and highlights investigation and research conducted in the us which showed that one in 10 homicide offenders was in the right way identified, while untrue negatives and untrue positives were very high.

with minimal data showing the gains of ‘nipping youth crime in the bud’, divination and intervention looks set to be a major share of criminology studies in the future – and this is perhaps one of its most appealing distinct features. There are reasons for crime, but the most skillful modes and methods for stopping it can not simply be targeting individuals – but can rather come from larger social changes.