What matters relating to Sandy’s background or present circumstances could have had a bearing on the offence committed? Are ther

  100% Pass and No Plagiarism Guaranteed

What matters relating to Sandy’s background or present circumstances could have had a bearing on the offence committed? Are there any personal circumstances that should be taken into account in terms of understanding the offending behaviour and how ‘b

Introduction

What matters relating to Sandy’s background or present circumstances could have had a bearing on the offence committed? Are there any personal circumstances that should be taken into account in terms of understanding the offending behaviour and how ‘best’ to respond to it?

Lives in a housing estate with relative poverty (outskirts of large city)

Left Realism - John Lea and Jock Young. Social causes – unemployment – ‘relative deprivation’ and lack of opportunity (race track analogy). Subcultures/Differential association. Lea and Young 1987. Bonger – Poor are desperate and therefore more likely to commit crime. Will go outwith their own neighbourhood but crime happens with locality.

Right Realism – Charles Murray, Marcus Felson. Benefits too generous, individual choice, single mothers caused crime. ‘Underclass’, poor education. Breakdown in traditional families. Blame the poor for the situation. Not underlying structural problems. Blamed moral decline and lack of responsibility. Illegitimate: marriage seen as unimportant. Habitual criminality, refused to work. Men find other ways to prove they are men, takes a destructive form. Opportunity , rational choice. Murray (1990)

 What potential risks are there of re-offending?

Unless formal and informal measures are put in the place there is a very high chance of reoffending, he has already broken the terms of a previous CBO. Take away risk factors. Nothing has changed, already broke it once. Lea and young informal and formal controls

 There are 5 techniques of neutralisation;

• Denial of responsibility. The offender will propose that they were victims of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control.^[2]
• Denial of injury. The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or damage.^[2]
• Denial of the victim. The offender believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed.^[2]
• Condemnation of the condemners. The offenders maintain that those who condemn their offense are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly.^[2]
• Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender suggests that his or her offense was for the greater good, with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend.^[2]