This is one of the first forms of punishment – essentially the idea of “an eye for an eye”. Those who advocate reprisal believe that it gives a sense of satisfaction to victims of crime or to society as a whole, knowing that a criminal has received the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Legislators face the task of establishing these appropriate penalties, which can range from fines for speeding to mandatory penalties for certain crimes. When people obey the law, they take the very existence of the law—the mere fact of a legal requirement—as a reason to adapt their actions to what the law orders (Raz 1979; Smith, 1973). They respect the law when they treat the existence of the law as a ground for action. It may sound simple enough, but in many ways it`s less simple than this short summary suggests. First and foremost, it is important to distinguish between actions taken under the act (or reasons that are accepted) and actions taken for other reasons that are simply consistent with the law (Green 2002, 541; Raz, 1984; Regan 1987, 1990, pp. 15-17). Attacking those of my colleagues who keep talking at faculty meetings is against the law, but the law doesn`t matter to stop me from doing so. The reason I don`t succumb to the temptation to ensure their brevity with a baseball bat is simply that it would be wrong to do so, where the lie here is completely a matter of pre- or extra-legality.
Such an action would be both morally wrong and wisely dangerous for me, and that is why I do not. But the law plays no role in my moral or regulatory calculations and no role in my final decision on what to do. Similarly, my reluctance to engage in murder, rape, robbery, insider trading, cannibalism, and a variety of other activities is a complex algorithm of moral views and personal preferences, depending on the activity, but the law is not even the smallest component of that algorithm. It would be strange to say that I obey the law against murder or that I follow the laws that prohibit cannibalism, although it is certain that my behavior does not violate these laws in any way. As with the crime of breaking and entering, penalties for breaking and entering may vary depending on state laws. Penalties and charges also vary if the court concludes that the defendant intended to commit a crime while on the property. This new approach to criminal justice calls on the perpetrator to provide direct reparations to the victim of his crime as well as to the community in which the crime was committed. Judges apply this approach primarily to young offenders.
In this approach, the criminal and the victim meet so that the perpetrator can hear what the victim is saying about their experiences with the crime being committed. The aggressor then makes an effort to make amends and ask for forgiveness. The above examples suggest the following hypothesis: if illegal politics succeed for political and political reasons, and if formal sanctions are not available, the fact of illegality will be relatively inconsequential, but if illegal policies fail for political and political reasons, the fact of illegality will increase what would otherwise have been political and reputational punishment for officials responsible for politics. Is breaking the law a politically risky act for politicians and other public servants? The issue is particularly important in the context of legislators and senior officials who, for reasons of immunity or other reasons, are not subject to formal legal sanctions if they violate the law. In such contexts, we might think that various other effects would serve instead of formal legal sanctions, so that violation of the Constitution or the law would entail tangible political, reputational and social risks. However, a number of examples suggest, but not definitively, that violation of the law by law is generally not punishable by non-legal sanctions. The electorate, the media, and most other potential sources of social and political sanctions reward good political decisions and sanction bad ones, but the fact of illegality, except perhaps by increasing sanctions for bad political decisions that are also illegal, seems at most a small role in limiting the decisions of a large group of the most influential and visible U.S. officials. play. Students of an online Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice learn this type of criminal sanction as part of a program that prepares them for success in the field of criminal justice.
Punishment through shame offers a cheap and morally satisfying alternative to punishment. Courts have ordered those convicted of child molestation or abuse to put up signs in their yards announcing their crimes. Other judges also ordered drivers suffering from chronic drunkenness to attach bright orange bumper stickers to their cars, report their problem and ask other drivers to report irregular driving to police. Critics say that this form of punishment is unlikely to succeed in changing the behavior of repeat offenders because these people are used to breaking the rules of society anyway. Probation and probation may seem similar, but they are different punishments. Both sentences offer ways to avoid a prison sentence, and both depend on a person`s behavior (that is, if you behave accordingly, everything will be fine; but if you spoil it, you will go to jail). Both forms of punishment usually take the form of so-called supervised or conditional release. The offender must comply with certain eligibility requirements, for example. B regular meetings with a supervisor.
As mentioned at the end of the previous section, one thing that makes the issue of official obedience to the law both interesting and potentially important is the possibility that there is a significant separation between official practice and official rhetoric. Although few officials claim to reject the law as a reason for decision, and although many of them actively trumpet obedience to the law as an important value, their actions could refute their rhetoric. That is, civil servants can claim the value of obedience to the law if the lawful acts to which they refer are those they would have chosen for reasons independent of the law, but if the law obliges them to take measures incompatible with their non-legal preferences, they can sometimes, often or almost always, if there are no legal sanctions in sight, choose to follow their preferences independent of the law rather than the law.8 To the extent that this is so, and to the extent that it is long enough, the rhetoric of obedience to the law can be undermined by the empirical fact of frequent and unauthorized disobedience. If we assume that officials who behave in this way often accurately perceive and respond to the preferences of their different constituencies, the widespread presence of preferring the substance of the first order to the constraints of the second order of the law, when such a preference actually exists, will tell us a lot about the extent to which, where appropriate, the right to quality is really a value, which society has internalized.9 So, as has been made clear, this is the issue I want to address. To what extent do civil servants, especially in areas where the possibility of a legal sanction does not formally or practically exist, follow the law – or do they take the precepts of the law as grounds for action – simply because it is the law? This is an issue of pervasive practical importance, especially in public law, partly because so many actors of public law are not subject to formal legal sanctions, and partly because the rhetoric of obedience to the law plays such an important role in public, political and journalistic discourse. If, in fact, true obedience to the law is the exception rather than the rule, and true obedience is rarely rewarded and sometimes condemned,7 then the implications for law-making and for the way public discourse should be conducted may be profound. If there is also the intention to commit a crime as soon as he is inside, . B such as breaking into a house to steal valuables or breaking into a car with the intention of stealing said car, the crime is considered a burglary. Breaking and entering as a full-fledged crime is generally considered a misdemeanor and is associated with an illegal intrusion. However, breaking and entering is also often associated with the crime of burglary, which is generally classified as a crime.
In such cases, the charge of burglary and trespassing is usually taken over in the charge of burglary, which leads to a criminal complaint. If it is true that independent obedience to sanctions is not as widespread as many people assume and how many officials advertise it, then it may turn out that sanctions are and should be a larger part of the picture than much of the legal literature of the last half century could have imagined.15 Since Hart`s 1961 attack on the representation of legal obligation based on sanctions and Austin`s coercion, practitioners of the obscure art of the Analytical jurisprudence has placed the internalization of law as a right, regardless of sanctions, at the center of explaining the nature and phenomenon of law. But while such internalization is rare – for both civil servants and citizens – coercion may play a more important role in a solid explanation of the phenomenon of law than in the writings of the modern jurisprudential tradition. And as public law becomes an increasingly important part of law in general, the need for legal sanctions to ensure official compliance with the norms of public law can be a window through which we can examine the role of coercion, sanctions and violence in understanding the functioning of modern legal systems, and quite simply: what they are. A problem can arise if someone else lives in the house and tries to prevent you from entering for some reason. .