If You Can't Do the Time, Don't Do the Crime

In our society, laws apply to everyone equally. These laws, that have been modified throughout the centuries, are a result of people deeming acts as sinful against their values and beliefs. When something bad happened, society took action to make sure those harms weren't committed again. Thus, laws were changed for the betterment of society. As a functional theorist, I believe that these laws unite people because it creates two groups: the people who respect the same values and norms, and the people who don't. Often referred to as "collective consciousness" by famous sociologist Emile Durkheim, these values and norms are principles that society has collectively decided to believe in. However, the people who don't respect this moral code should not be immediately considered criminal. In my opinion, we need to separate criminals into two groups: good person in a bad situation, and bad person in any situation. 

Every society needs crime to function. Crime keeps the business of law intact. For some, the law have given them a job. For others, it has given them security.  Without crime, no boundaries would be marked and there would be no definition to people's values and norms. If the law does not exist, neither does the criminal. Nevertheless, one does not necessarily need to be criminal to go against society's values. There is a difference between being criminal and being deviant. A deviant minor, in my opinion, is someone who has been neglected by their family. To ensure that this individual grows up with the same ethics and morals as everyone else, the family and the community must carry out their respective roles in order to instill these concepts properly. Thus, if a family or the community is neglecting a child, the child will act deviantly. Additionally, the community must work together to create a balance. When there is a problem in society, it is because of the lack of cooperation of one group, and as a result, another group must compensate to secure that balance. As I mentioned previously, there is a difference between being criminal and deviant. So what should we do once the line from deviant to criminal has been crossed?

When you are young, you don't think about the repercussions your actions may have on your future. For this reason, I don't think that young offenders should be sent to jail, with the sole exception of murderers. Just as The Younger Offenders Act states in the Confessions and Statements section, the punishment or sentencing must suit the crime. Minors who are deviant are not bad people; they are people who need a stronger support system. Therefore, the thousands of dollars that we, as taxpayers, provide should not go towards housing the minor in a jail cell, but it should go towards sending them and their families to a correctional family center. By this, I mean the family would work together to become stronger, and the parents would learn that supporting their child is a necessity. Not only does this teach the family and the child the values and norms of society, but they end up a happier family. In shorter terms, when the family is not doing their job properly, the government must step in and force that job upon them. Furthermore, there are not only deviant minors, there are criminal minors. There are people that should be classified as abhorrent people no matter what their situation. Some people just can't fit into society. A minor who has been found guilty of killing another person should be immediately locked up. At any age, murder, in my opinion, is the most severe type of crime that can be committed and it should not be pardoned under any circumstances. In the case of a minor killer, the thousands of dollars spent annually to keep them behind bars could potentially result in other people staying alive. Once a murderer, always a murderer. Now it is the responsibility of society as a whole to make sure that anybody that has done the crime, must do the time.