Fine conversions explain the sharp increase in the use of corporal punishment. Many people could not pay their fines due to their poverty so the fines were converted to corporal punishment. It was possible to convert the fine to a prison sentence but that would probably have been too costly for the state to make it a viable option. It was cheaper and more effective to sentence the thief to a few lashes of the whip than to offer a bed and a free meal at the county prison. Nevertheless, it seems that sentencing practices during the famine did not conform to the spirit of the reformation statute or the new ideologies of the criminal justice system, the scarcity of resources forcing the courts to administer justice with a stern hand. Interestingly, this development demonstrates how the legal system reacts in a time of crisis and how its ideals can quickly change.
the influencing factors is former state economic monopoly, which existed prior to the market economy reforms. 5 This period is characterized by a conflict between demands of the people or certain social groups and legal restrictions of economic activity. The worse situation with legal industrial activity, the more profitable are criminal economic activities. 6 For decades, the prevalent black economy formed a specific type of entrepreneur, pre-disposed to criminal activity (tax evasion, criminal ways of conflict resolution, etc.). Thus the transition reforms to a market economy were introduced in the economic system, already having the “genetic” propensity for criminal offenses. 7 The growth of economic criminality has been affected by property privatization and economic liberalization process, which due to the lack of proper legal regulation has become very attractive to people gaining from illegal picking, thereby additionally financing the criminal business. 8 It’s worth mentioning other determining factors as well: 9 1) The State’s inability to effectively protect business entities and solve discords emerging among them, hereby giving rise to the formation of a criminal infrastructure of economic relations; 2) The lack of a comprehensive economic regulatory approach; 3) The growing economic inequality and unemployment as well as the loss of socially valuable landmarks (degradation of the level of morality); 4)The punishment being inadequate to the dangerousness of the offences; 5) Ineffective actions of Law Enforcement.
the increased risk perception of international investors. In sum, civil wars may produce a severe economic crisis in neighboring countries. If the main trade partner of a given state is a war torn country in its neighborhood, it may lose a large share of its export revenues very rapidly creating economic hardship. The negative economic repercussions of internal conflicts on nearby states may lead to a rise in crime rates for two main reasons. First, a severe economic crisis can lead to an increase in poverty rates in the short run. Economic hardship can push individuals to engage in criminal behavior if other legal and socially accepted means to reach their economic needs are blocked because of the economic conjuncture. Second, a reduction in growth can temporarily reduce the capacity of the state to face criminal activity. If individuals perceive that the costs of crime decrease, the fear of punishment in turn dwindle. During a severe economic crisis the police and military capabilities of states may decline, and the perceived costs of crime for individuals may decrease. Civil wars are often located in poor regions where countries tend to have weak or even failed states. In this context, the decline in the law enforcement capabilities of the state is likely to be especially pernicious, and to produce a significant increase in criminality. I do not expect that the negative economic consequences of a civil war in a neighboring country will be felt immediately. In fact, the country may have financial resources to deal with the immediate impact of the economic crisis engendered by the internal conflict in the neighborhood. Moreover, investors in the country will carefully consider the security situation before fleeing the country. However, after a rather limited lapse of time a civil war in the neighborhood will create economic hardships, which will in turn provoke an increase in crime rates.
In a parallel way, the international community has been related to the ideal of international justice 21 , in the current era of globalization 22 . For instance, European Union has duplicated the law against the commerce of drugs, frequently facilitated through navigation, by introducing anti-money laundering law. This modern branch includes inter alia the theft of the cargo of a ship as well as antiquities looting and trafficking as basic crimes, so it is obviously related to various forms of maritime criminality. Nevertheless, it has sometimes caused severe criticism, such as the relevant to the misuse of independent authorities mechanism. Anyway, it has been recently connected with the transfer of information from the private sector to the competent public authorities, to cope with this complex form of criminality. As far as the fifth directive is concerned, it is quite impressive the fact that European Union keeps adopting rules and making use of over-criminalization.
6 “Opportunity theory” theory of female criminality is developed by Rita J. Simon (1975) in the book Women and Crime. She emphasized the descriptions of different dimensions of female criminality, that is- type, nature and also the corrective role of jail and court in this regard. She showed that there is no difference between male and female in terms of morality, the biological characteristics not being relevant for committing crime. According to the empirical observations of this theory, she argued that historically, males are more active in crime because of their greater social opportunities, competencess, and networking than females. In the broader social context, if female opportunity, efficiency and social communication are increased, then the rate of female criminality increases accordingly (Small: 2000, Chelik: 2008). Simon logically argued that, ‘when more women get access in labor market as skilled labor and posses highly specialized position in the job sector they commit more employment related property crime like men. Some women take the advantage of these opportunities, just as some men do before’ (Simon, 1975: 03). On the other hand, she logically comments that, ‘If women become more skilled and educated, they will be economically independent in future’. Consequently, the rate of violent crime of female will be reduced since women generally commit violent acts against their husbands or inmate partners. Still, she asserted that women were committing more crimes generally characterized as masculine, particularly white-collar and occupationally offences (Curran and Ranzetti: 2001). When women become more educated and independent they will be more able to resolve these often volatile situations in other less violent ways. Additionally, she argued that the decrease in female violent crime was the result of feminism. ‘As women feel more liberated physically, emotionally, and legally, and are less subjected to male power, their frustrations and anger decrease ... [which results] in a decline in their desire to kill the usual objects of their anger of frustration: their husbands, lovers, and other men upon whom they are dependent, but insecure about’ (Simon, 1975:40). This is where the masculinity theory differs from the opportunity theory. This point is often missed by researchers who link the two theories together as one, and labeling them as the liberation or gender equality theory. Overall, the opportunity theory predicts that increasing opportunities of women reduce the rates of violent female criminality, but increase the rates of property female criminality, especially larceny/theft, embezzlement, fraud, and forgery.
Moffat (2006) and O’Malley (2001, 2008, 2010b) that highlight the importance of examining risk technologies in context in order to grasp the multiplicity, complexity and flexibility of risk logics. As the examples explored in this paper suggest, there is potential for risk rationalities to be rethought and reformulated. Where compliance reviews have long acted as a system of informal punishment, through the technology of risk, they have been recast as opportunities to guide and assist recipients. This suggests that concerns about justice and fairness may be articulated alongside risk. It opens up the possibility of articulating more progressive agendas, perhaps even claims for redistribution, into the accepted language of risk. If, as the literature demonstrates, financial hardship underlies the majority social security fraud offending (see Hui, Moerman and Rudkin 2011; Walsh and Marston 2008), increasing welfare payment rates could be articulated as a fraud risk reduction strategy. It is perhaps a far‐fetched proposition in the context of New Right political dominance, but it does provide a patent illustration of the malleability of risk logics.
Reward and punishment have, more or less, always been in educational environments. They are sometimes believed to be a facilitator, or sometimes an inhibitor, and indispensable practices of education systems. Reward and punishment are means of external intervention to behaviour and can be used for different purposes. Although they are used for different purposes, it is thought that reward and punishment that intervene the behaviour from external world are in fact processed through individuals’ filter of perception and interpretation, and weakens their locus of control by negatively affecting it in a similar way. Despite being used for different purposes, it is thought that as a result of the common meaning attached to reward and punishment in internal perception processes, an increase in the sensitivity to one of these practices would cause an increase in the other as well. In this study, this hypothesis was tested in the academic context where reward and punishment widely exist.
experiences are decreasing, minority races/ethnicities are more likely to experience and employ corporal punishment than non-Hispanic Caucasians. Examining trends across racial groups, this study found that 28.9% of Native Americans/Alaskan natives, 20.9% of African-Americans, 18% of Hispanics, 16.9% of Caucasians, and 11.3% of Asians/Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders reported experiencing harsh physical punishment as a child. The findings of Taillieu and colleagues suggest that harsh physical discipline has steadily decreased over the past seventy years among Caucasians with only 11.3% of twenty to twenty-nine year-olds reporting that they were spanked as children compared to 19.6% of fifty to fifty-nine year-olds. In contrast, there was little evidence of a change in the rates of harsh physical discipline among African-