There is a general belief by most Americans that by increasing the severity of punishments to crime offenders, there is a likelihood of crime rates going down. The same idea is shared by the judicial system which has opted to impose severe punishments to criminals. Nevertheless, there are conflicting views and opinions over the degree of punishment which should be leveled against law breakers. A critical point of discussion which has been explored by sociologists lies on the two major types of crime namely those committed on the streets and those perpetrated by elites in offices and government departments. A sociologist by the name Edwin Sutherland observed that crimes committed by elites are even more serious in terms of cost that the popularly known street crimes. His publication of the book White Collar Crime gave a lot of insight on this type of crime. He further emphasized that even if street offenders were severely punished, it would not positively reflect on the desired gains bearing in mind that the causes of crimes remain deeply rooted in the society and equally unresolved.
On a similar note but with a different perspective, Hagan in his publication “White-Collar Crime in a Global Economy” emphasizes that the major beneficiaries of social crimes are those who perpetrate it at the corporate level under closed doors and therefore instilling severe punishment on such offenders may just be history repeating itself. Other restrictive methods need to be used to avoid possible criminals from carrying out acts of crime.
On the other hand, sociologists have differed substantially on criminological framework. There area myriad of conflicting theories which have attempted to explain why people engage in crime and whether severe penalties may serve as the solution to the challenge posed by crime. There are more laws which are pin-pointing street crimes than those offences committed by elites. This is in itself a big loophole in the attempt to impose strict punishment on offenders. The criminal justice system has equally sidelined its judgment by giving harsh sentences to street criminals than elite offenders. This historical position assumed by the justice system has not yield ed any positive fruits in the fight against crime in general. Additionally, it is only first time offenders who may be moved by severe sentences but those who have been in the crime scene for long just harden up.
The argument advanced by conflict theorists states that the many laws imposed on street offenders are mainly to be the gain of the elites. There are well organized groups who have keen interest in controlling criminal gangs. Therefore, the execution of strict laws on street offenders may as well be an exercise on futility unless the root causes are keenly investigated. Moreover, there are very minimal arrests involving white collar crimes. This has created a negative perception on the entire society due to the selective application of the justice process. Moreover, Rosenfeld and messner suggest that it is important to give more attention to regulation of crime rates rather than merely addressing the menace at the judicial level.
The article which was written by Wilson and Kelling gives radical proposals on how laws should be administered in regard to controlling crime rates in the society. They argue that there is dire need to maintain law and order in the society and not just dwelling on the sentence process after criminals have been apprehended by the long arm of the law. This argument again tends to distance itself away from the popular notion that severe punishment may adequately address an d resolve the rising crime rates.