In what ways has crime evolved over time?

To prepare:
Review the Learning Resources this week to deepen your understanding of the Depravity Standard and classifying crimes by severity of depravity.
Review the “About the Research” page of the Depravity Standard website, then complete the Depravity Survey located on the “Take the Survey” page.
Note: To complete the survey, you must enter your email address.
Consider the ways in which crime depravity has changed over time and your views on sentencing in relation to depravity.
Post your response to the following questions:
In what ways has crime evolved over time?
Should sentencing of offenders be based on the relative depravity of their crime? Explain your rationale.
What are potential problems in collecting and/or incorporating depravity findings in sentencing laws?
Note: Your post should be substantial (1 paragraph or more for each bullet point above), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA style.
ANSWER
**In what ways has crime evolved over time?**
Crime has evolved over time in a number of ways. First, the types of crimes that are committed have changed. For example, in the past, crimes such as robbery and burglary were more common, but today, crimes such as cybercrime and identity theft are more common. Second, the methods used to commit crimes have changed. For example, in the past, criminals typically used physical force to commit crimes, but today, criminals often use technology to commit crimes. Third, the motivations for crime have changed. For example, in the past, criminals were often motivated by financial gain, but today, criminals are often motivated by other factors, such as revenge or thrill-seeking.
**Should sentencing of offenders be based on the relative depravity of their crime?**
There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of this issue.
**Arguments in favor of basing sentencing on depravity:**
* **Depravity is a measure of the harm that a crime causes to victims and society.** Crimes that are more depraved are more harmful and therefore deserve more severe punishment.
* **Basing sentencing on depravity can help to deter criminals from committing heinous crimes.** Criminals are more likely to be deterred from committing crimes if they know that they will receive a severe punishment if they are caught.
* **Basing sentencing on depravity can help to ensure that justice is served for victims and their families.** Victims and their families deserve to know that the criminal who harmed them has been punished appropriately.
**Arguments against basing sentencing on depravity:**
* **Depravity is a subjective measure.** What one person considers to be a depraved crime, another person may not. This can lead to inconsistencies in sentencing.
* **Basing sentencing on depravity can lead to longer prison sentences for some offenders.** This can have a number of negative consequences, such as increased recidivism rates and higher costs for taxpayers.
* **Basing sentencing on depravity can give the government too much power.** The government could use this power to punish offenders for their beliefs or lifestyles, rather than for their crimes.
**My rationale for basing sentencing on depravity:**
I believe that sentencing should be based on the relative depravity of the crime. This is because I believe that the harm that a crime causes to victims and society should be the primary factor in determining the severity of the punishment. Crimes that are more depraved are more harmful and therefore deserve more severe punishment.
However, I also believe that there are some potential problems with collecting and/or incorporating depravity findings in sentencing laws. One problem is that depravity is a subjective measure. What one person considers to be a depraved crime, another person may not. This can lead to inconsistencies in sentencing. Another problem is that basing sentencing on depravity can lead to longer prison sentences for some offenders. This can have a number of negative consequences, such as increased recidivism rates and higher costs for taxpayers.
I believe that these problems can be addressed by developing clear and objective criteria for determining depravity. These criteria should be based on factors such as the severity of the physical and emotional harm caused to the victim, the level of planning and premeditation involved in the crime, and the offender’s level of remorse.
I also believe that sentencing should be individualized. This means that the judge should consider all of the relevant factors in a case, including the offender’s personal history, the circumstances of the crime, and the potential for rehabilitation. This will help to ensure that justice is served for all parties involved.
**Potential problems in collecting and/or incorporating depravity findings in sentencing laws:**
* **Difficulty in defining and measuring depravity.** Depravity is a complex concept that is difficult to define and measure. This can make it difficult to develop objective criteria for determining depravity.
* **Bias in the assessment of depravity.** The assessment of depravity can be subjective and influenced by the personal biases of the assessor. This can lead to disparities in sentencing.
* **Potential for abuse of power.** The government could use the concept of depravity to punish offenders for their beliefs or lifestyles, rather than for their crimes. This could lead to a violation of the offender’s rights.
Overall, I believe that the potential benefits of basing sentencing on depravity outweigh the potential problems. However, it is important to develop clear and objective criteria for determining depravity and to ensure that sentencing is individualized.