Introduction
The role of politics in criminology and laws cannot be underestimated in the modern world. Bureaucracy is an essential part of the process of analyzing the evidence-based materials. This is the reason why the government significantly influences the approach of criminologists as it controls the standards of their work. The state officials establish rules that are hard to be changed in the short period of time that makes the implementations of innovations in this sphere a challenging issue. Historical past – values, traditions, and even customs – has a crucial impact on the functioning of the judicial system. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of the power structures on criminology and its approaches in the analysis of evidence and making decisions.
The Impact of Traditions in Judicial System
Throughout time communication between ordinary people and the representatives of the authorities were controlled by specific rules that played a significant role in establishing the relationships between the two groups. For example, if a person came before the judge to the court, he had more chances to win the process (Radizinowicz, 3). This action was considered as a demonstration of respect and, at the same time, submission.
The influence of the traditions and customs should not be underestimated as in the past it was the obligatory requirement to win a trial. Moreover, it increased the probability of the victory without any correlation with the committed crime itself (Radizinowicz, 3). In the circumstances of the modern world, where human dignity and the equity of people are highly evaluated values in developed countries, these rules are perceived as intolerant and discriminative. Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out that the formalities in communication with the representatives of the government still affect the judicial procedures (Fleury, 4). For instance, there are punishments for deviant and inappropriate behavior in the court. It is forbidden to talk in a loud way or to express personal opinions and suggestions. The customs and specific historical aspects have a noticeable impact on the behavior rules during the judicial process.
It is possible to suggest that the role of innovations is perceived in a particular way in the field of criminology. In earlier centuries physical punishments were one of the most widespread ways to solve the problem (Radizinowicz, 12). Nowadays in many countries this approach is forbidden. That is supposed to be the progress in this sphere. However, it is necessary to concentrate not only on specific actions but also on the methodology of the decision-making.
It can be assumed that the way of passing a judgement did not change in a significant way. The traditions of respect and the role of the political system are a part of the judicial system. Court depends on the governmental perspectives and rules established by the state officials in order to save the power and to control the inhabitants of the state. In conclusion, traditions did not change only in the process of decision-making performed by the judge but also in causes of the penalties. It leads to significant changes in the freedom of expression and the functioning of media sources.
There are fewer physical punishments but there still exist criminal cases concerning the freedom of speech and expression. People suffer because of tweeting or posting on Facebook inappropriate information and their personal opinion. Media functioning is influenced by the specific laws and total control of the government. It is necessary to point out that, in some situations, the freedom of speech leads to the decrease of the level of trust towards the government. That is why they have to control where and how people express their thoughts and ideas. In many countries the freedom of speech is often violated as there is no “bargaining chip” from the position of the nation.
Crime as a Demonstration of a Deviant Behavior
One of the most vital responsibilities of the government is providing safety and comfort to the citizens of the country. The court plays a crucial role in implementing this duty into real life. Patten claims that criminologists may even predict the specificity of the crimes and punishments taking into consideration the political situation and its changes in the state (32). The criminal act is considered as an example of deviant behavior. This idea helps the government to explain ordinary people why the judicial system is beneficial for their safety (Patten, 23). In this case, it is crucial to highlight that the state officials have the power to decide which behavior is not appropriate in the existing system of values and wealth (Fleury, 4). The government has a monopoly on the majority of rules and laws: it is hard to influence without being a part of governmental system.
Social and political sciences are crucial for investigating the processes in the sphere of criminology. Fleury maintains that crime control depends significantly on public policy. It is possible to assume that the society and the governmental system become less democratic as the freedom and the rights of people are regularly violated in the modern society. The representatives of the authorities often consider crime as a social harm. However, it is crucial to point out that these terms have diverse meanings (Hillyard, 9). The author of the article claims that the notion of social harm is not more legal than the offence, but it provides more justice and more objective overview of the situation (Hillyard, 23). In this case, the principles of public good should be taken into consideration.
If there is no harm to the inhabitants of the country, their comfort and safety, there is no need to perceive the action as a crime. Hillyard highlights the fact that criminology is based on radical and critical methods of examination (22). The political and historical factors must be analyzed in order to support this hypothesis. The authorities were always interested in supporting their power and establishing the rules and the laws that would be beneficial for their goals.
Evidence-based information should not be underestimated in the sphere of criminology. Barnes and his colleagues claim that the lack of objectivity in this field may be the consequence of the absence of the particular facts (384). Formal data cannot be verified; that is why criminologists have to make a narrative in order to understand the motivation of the criminal and investigate the plausibility of the offence and the verdict.
Conclusion
Government plays a crucial role in the judicial system in the 21st century. On the one hand, the court is one of the most conservative places with laws and rules established centuries ago. On the other hand, the authorities control all the innovations in this field in order to save the power of making decisions and monitoring the verdicts. Criminologists have to pay more attention to statistics and its causes and consequences. Analyzing the narrative is crucial as it helps to verify the objectivity of the judge. The role of values and traditions is still high in this field, which decreases the level of equality and honesty. It is possible to suggest that the best solution to this issue would be restricting the access of the government to the decisions made by the judge and to the rules in the judicial system.
Works Cited
Barnes, James, et al. (2020). “How Powerful is the Evidence in Criminology? On whether We Should Fear a Coming Crisis of Confidence.” Justice Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3, 2020, pp. 383–409.
Fleury, Jean-Baptiste. “Social Scientists on Crime After World War II.”SSRN, 2019, pp. 2–30, Web.
Hillyard, Paddy, and Steve Tombs. “From ‘Crime’ to Social Harm?” Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 48, no. 2, 2007, pp. 9–25.
Patten, Daniel J. “An Unfinished Journey: The Evolution of Crime Measurement in the United States.” The Hilltop Review, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015, pp. 23–34.
Radizinowicz, Leon. Ideology and Crime: A Study of Crime in Its Social and Historical Context. Heinemann Educational Books, 1966.