Introduction
The comprehension of criminal justice remains a foremost consideration before individuals, entities, or agencies understand any given crime. In this case, the crime whose maximum term is to be doubled is that of armed robbery. There is an overwhelming legal evidence to comprehend specific crimes in their totalities before defining their criminal/justice aspects. From this observation, it is clear that all personalities involved in the definition of any criminal justice must consider the different contexts in which the commission of a specific crime might occur within the population. Thus, it is appropriate that any policy-making within the criminal justice must depend on the criminological theory. This must occur, regardless of the legal knowledge of the makers.
Goals and Objectives of the Bill
The chief objective of this bill is to double the highest prison period for any person found guilty of armed robbery. There is a legal observation from this statement that the bill tends to create a very punitive manner of dealing with armed robbers within the general society. It creates a high standard for punishment of the offenders and scares potential criminals to stay off the act. The bill aims to create a legal base of severely punishing the offenders involved in armed robbery.
Possible Solutions for the Bill
The bill must first understand the criminal etiology process in order to draw any penology on the particular crime. The bill must be treated or handled with a lot of caution as just increasing the severity of the punishment for such offenders might not necessarily lead to a change in criminal trends or engagement. A considerable period of research and engagement of various stakeholders including the public has to be done for the legislatures to have an informed decision concerning the bill. Moreover, caution should be taken for the bill not to major so much on punitive aspects rather than character transformation of such offenders.
Justification for Why the Bill Should Be Approved or Not
A critical analysis of the bill indicates that it should never be approved. This is because it lacks the proper definition and consideration of criminal etiology. Moreover, there is lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the process. The bill also lacks the basic scientific analysis of the situations under which the described crime may be conducted. There is also the absence of critical descriptions, assumptions, as well as explanations that describe the process under which the bill emanates.
Recommendations and the Reasons for Recommendations
The legislators must be patient to consult the stakeholders and be pertinent with the various criminological theories applicable to this particular bill. This is because the issues about etiology, assumptions, and descriptions are not properly articulated or presented in the bill. Instead, the bill should be amended to stress more on the rehabilitative and transformative measures meant for such offenders rather than engaging them in severe punishments. This is because institution of legal severe punishment measures do not necessarily replicate into total deterrence from an act or behavior change.
The Bill and Its Effectiveness
The bill is bad and is likely to be rendered ineffective due to numerous pitfalls it contains (already highlighted). This is basically because it does not meet the legal requirements and transformative clauses able to ensure effective character transformation and rehabilitation of the offenders. It is crucial to understand such provision in the context of criminology.