Answer

The Theory of Criminal Justice—Question 2

QUESTION 2

Understanding the theory of the criminal justice system entails acknowledging the fact that there are varied theoretical perspectives that have to be appreciated for a fuller and more complete appreciation of the criminal justice system in America. This essay looks at two such theories—rational legalism and functional systems theories. The essay is a comparison and contrast of the two theories in the light of their revolutionary contribution to the American criminal justice system. The essay assesses the key principles for each theory and how they differ, the assumptions made by the proponents of each of the two theories on criminal justice and the implications of each of the perspectives in criminal justice reform. The two theories make vital contributions in our understanding of the criminal justice system and the directions this field ought to take.

Principles of each theory

The functional systems approach acknowledges that crime is inevitable in any society (Koh, 2020). The inevitability of crime, according to this perspective, is because of the positive functions that crime is perceived to be performing in society. The perspective argues that in any society, crime has to be present. This is because not everyone will be committed in equal manner to the values and moral beliefs that are shared within any society. Some will inevitably break the laws of the land. Even in a society of saints, crime will still be there as the moral standards will be so high that any slight breaking of rules will be considered serious (Mayeux, 2018). The perspective argues that crime performs positive functions in society including social regulation, social integration and social change. The criminal justice system, according to them, benefits everyone in society through punishment to criminals and establishing acceptable boundaries of behaviour.

The rational legalism perspective holds that the law is legitimate and ought to be applied justly and fairly. It holds an inherently conservative view of the law within the criminal justice system. In this view, the people within any community are viewed as rational beings whose behaviour can be controlled or even be modified through the fear of punishment. The perspective therefore implies that people are responsible for the choices they make, and so individual offenders have only themselves to blame for their criminality. They have to face the just consequences of their criminal actions.

 The two perspectives differ in where they put the blame for criminal activities in any given society. The functionalist approach admits that crime is inevitable, and that regardless of what happens in terms of the punishment, laws and criminal justice reforms, there will always be crime, it therefore in a way views crime positively. The rational legalistic view on the other hand fully lays the blame on the individual offenders. In their view, crime can be totally curtailed through the institution of punishment (Carpenter, 2020). In other words, unlike the functionalism view, crime to them is not inevitable. Crime is totally negative in this view.

Assumptions of the two Theories

One of the assumptions that the functionalist theory makes is that society has universal norms and values that can often be reinforced through the public punishment of certain crimes. It is these norms that form the basis of a “normal society” and help integrate the concept of the functional significance of every crime that is committed. The second assumption made by this theory is that the functionality of a crime can be determined objectively and is not dependent on an individual’s relationship to the crime (Mayeux, 2018). In other words, for every crime committed, there can be a corresponding functionality that can be objectively determined.

The rational legalism perspective assumes that the existing laws are well-intended and aim at preserving and protecting people. This assumption draws from the premise that for each crime, there is a corresponding punishment that is laid down to protect the others from the commitment of such crimes. This view ignores the fact that not all laws have this noble intention because for every law, there are also external intentions that may not be overtly apparent (Carpenter, 2020). The perspective also assumes that negative reinforcement will automatically discourage people from committing similar crimes. The assumption is that punishment works, and with increased punishment, there is more discouragement of the crime.

Implications of each Perspective on Criminal Justice Reform

Because the functional perspective argues for the benefits of the criminal justice system and the performance of crime, what this implies too is that positive transformation of the criminal justice system would also positively impact on the society as a whole. Proponents of the functionalist perspective then argue for a reform of the criminal justice system so that it can reflect on the values, ethos and moral standards that any society aspires to attain as these would ultimately serve the society better. Just the way crime is necessary, criminal justice reform is also essential in society.

For the rational legalist perspective, criminal justice reform ought only to be seen through the tightening of laws that govern behaviour of individuals within the society (Koh, 2020). It is assumed that such laws would be the benchmark upon which behaviour is measured and offer guidance to individuals so that they may not engage in criminal activities. In addition, the criminal justice reform in this regard would entail the review of punishment to make it more commensurate to the crime. In their view, it is punishment that deters criminal behaviour, and so reforming the criminal justice system entails remodelling the punishments that criminals are subjected to.

In conclusion, understanding criminal justice theory entails bringing to bear the perspectives of a variety of theories and perspectives. The functionalist perspective views crime and criminal justice systems as inevitable in society while the rational legal perspective sees crime as a consequence of individual deviance to societal laws that has to be punished. Both perspectives have their roles in the American justice system and contributions to the criminal justice reform agenda.

This question has been answered