Narcotics Classification and Prosecution for Related Offenses

The harmful effects of drugs have been well and widely documented over many centuries. It is a fact that drugs harm not only the direct consumers, but also the society in which the drug users live. Costs of drugs to non-users include secondary smoke which is harmful to their health, increased crime, and the costs incurred on hospitalization of many of drug users who develop medical conditions including cancers, liver diseases, Hepatitis and HIV, asthma, pharyngitis and rhinitis (Amar, 2006). Drug use is also associated with increased instances of criminal behaviour (Gfroerer, 2000). In appreciating the myriad adverse effects of drugs, policy-makers all over the world have banned some substances which are classified as drugs, and regulated the use of others. For instance, some countries ban cigarette smoking in all public spaces and set aside specific points where smokers visit to smoke. Unlike tobacco, some other drugs are outlawed and the possession, trade in or use of such substances makes one liable for arrest and prosecution. This paper focuses on the classification of narcotics and the prosecution for narcotics-related cases.

Classification of narcotics
Most countries, and the United Nations, list hundreds of substances as narcotics. Save for scientific and medical purposes, the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of these drugs is highly regulated by respective enforcement agencies (European Legal Database on Drugs, 2008). Narcotics are classified as follows

Schedule I narcotics are comprises drugs whose users are known to develop serious dependence on these drugs and must therefore take them frequently and in increasing amounts for satisfaction. The addictive nature of these drugs intensifies the risk of abuse as users must seek regular and frequent doses. Further, these drugs have no known medicinal or therapeutic value.  Their use is restricted to research purposes only and even then, researchers must seek permission to use such substances from the Food and Drug Administration or from the relevant regulatory agencies. Drugs falling under schedule I include marijuana, mescaline, heroin, peyote, methadone and opium (Addiction Science European Legal Database on Drugs, 2008).
Schedule II envelops substances which are allowed for medical use. Though they also carry the risk of abuse liabilities, this risk is normally lower than that presented by Schedule I substances. Pharmacists stock Schedule II substances and physicians can prescribe them. However, pharmacists are required to keep special dispensation records and must observe specific storage requirements stipulated by the drug regulatory agencies. Schedule II substances include amphetamine, methamphetamine, coccaine, levorphanol, amobarbital, pentobarbital, phencycyclidine, dihydrocodeine (Addiction Science European Legal Database on Drugs, 2008).

Schedule III substances include substances in Schedule II plus others which are considered as posing a smaller risk of abuse liability. They have known and documented medical value and can thus be dispensed by pharmacists. Unlike Schedule II substances for which refills are not allowed, and for which one must present a written prescription, Schedule III substance users can refill their supplies and can order the substances over telephone. Schedule III substances include paregoric, chlorphentermine, anabolic steroids, preparations of codeine and propiram (Addiction Science European Legal Database on Drugs, 2008).
Schedule IV substances include those classified as Schedule III. The only difference is that Schedule IV substances are considered as harbouring an even lower risk of abuse liability. Schedule IV substances are permitted for medical use and can be obtained using written or telephone prescriptions. Substances in this schedule include chloral hydrate, chlordiazepoxide, diazepam, flunitrazepam, meprobamate, methohexital and phenobarbital (Addiction Science).

It is worth noting that drugs do not remain in the same classes for ever. Instead they can be rescheduled depending on new scientific information on their medical values or increasing dangers of such substances. If a substances that was previously banned is found have substantial medical use, it can be rescheduled to make it available to those who may need it. If, on the other hand, a substance which was considered less dangerous is found more dangerous, and poses a higher risk of physical or psychological dependence on users, it can be rescheduled so that its use is regulated more stringently, or it can be banned.

Conviction for drugs case
Successful conviction for a drug-related case requires that prosecuting agents provide strong and sufficient evidence. The conviction of suspects arrested in possession of illegal substances is the easier. It is more difficult to marshall sufficient enough evidence against indviduals who have no drugs on them at the time of arrest. Some of most notorious drug barons oversee the running of their drug empires and may only come into the drugs briefly. It is because of such reasons that law enforcement agencies must dig deeper for the evidence to convict such people.

Substance use is on the increase internationally and drug traffickers are coming up with newer, faster and more effective ways of conducting their trade while reducing their chances of arrest. It is thus necessary that enforcement agencies keep up with the drug kings. Careful and effective analysis of drugs ensures that the enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the judges know the exact drugs in question and the penalties such drugs attract. It would be a tragedy to set free a drug trafficker or user simply because the drugs presented as evidence were analysed poorly so that they warrant acquittal or a lenient penalty when they should attract long prison sentences or heavy fines.

There are instances where successful conviction leans heavily on the keen documentation and presentation of the chain of custody. A chain of custody gives details of how drugs seized from suspect are handled until they are presented as exhibit during trial. A complete chain of custody must comprise three elements account of all persons who handle the seized drugs from the minute of seizure to the time they are presented in court, testimony of the authenticity of the evidence, and guarantee that the evidence remains in the same condition from seizure to trial. The chain of custody strengthens the case against the offender, in favour of the prosecution (Legal Dictionary). On the other hand, it gives the offender the chance to challenge the evidence presented as evidence. If chain of custody is not documented well, the offender may take advantage to disown the seized drugs. Offenders also see their chance to challenge the prosecution if evidence is collected and analysed poorly.

That an increasingly large number of people are using drugs at all levels is not in question. While some of these substances are legal and beneficial (medically), others are not only illegal but also dangerous. The harmful effects of these substances necessitate the introduction and enforcement of measures to govern their use. Drugs are thus categorised into schedules depending on their harmful effects and benefits associated with their use. Laws are also put in place to prosecute and judge people convicted on drug-related charges. As shown above, law enforcement agents must present water tight evidence against such offenders to ensure successful and appropriate convictions.

Feminist critique of mainstream criminology

For many years there has been sharp criticism of the mainstream criminology system by feminists. This discussion looks at some of the areas in criminal justice where feminist critique of mainstream criminology has proven most successful and which areas have not felt much effect of the criticism (Yvonne, J. 2002).

There are five major areas that have been greatly criticized by feminists as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned. To begin with the mainstream criminology system has been accused of focusing on male offenders while totally ignoring female offenders. Perhaps this was because majority of criminals were men. This not withstanding, feminist critic has argued that both low rate offenders and high rates offenders must be studies if the actual causes of crime are to be identified. Feminists argue that it is important that criminologists should also find out the reasons why females are less or more likely to commit crimes that their male counterparts. It is further argues that most of the theories regarding crime that have been advanced have used male samples as the basis yet have been cited as general kind of theories  (Britt, C. 2003).

In this regard therefore female offenders have been seen to be sidelined by the mainstream criminology system. A perfect example is the theory of delinquency that was developed by Travis Hirschi did not include female data in the sample that he initially complied. In all discussions that have been advanced as far as causes of crime are concerned men and male offenders in general have been at the center with their female counterparts been seen as invisible. After numerous criticism there has been a slight change and female offenders are now been included in the various data that re being taken (Anthony, T. 2008).

The second issue of contention as far as the mainstream criminology system is concerned is the understanding and interpretation of crime by the mainstream system. According to feminists although a few works have been complied regarding lawbreaking by females, it has been discussed from a males perception. Otto Pollak and his counterparts attempted to group women into two major categories which are the bad women and the good women. In this kind of categorization, there was no room for those at the middle which in actual fact form the majority of women. In this categorization stereotyping was greatly visible and thus the information therein is misleading. An example that has been constantly cited by feminists is the crime of prostitution which most women fall prey. It was argued that while this crime was discussed in great depths the pressures of economy that force the women to resort into prostitution are rarely highlighted.
It is not included in the discussion that prostitution involves two parties, the man and the woman (Walter, S. 2006).

In crimes of prostitution, it is only the women that are blamed while the men are exonerated from the crime. In the light of the foregoing one major failure of the mainstream criminal system is that female crimes have always been interpreted from the point of view of males. Despite the various criticisms that have been cited by feminists the interpretation of crime still revolves around the male perception. The main stream system has not as yet accommodated the interpretation of crimes from a general perception as opposed from a patriarchal kind of view. This therefore is not one of the areas that the feminist criticism has not had much effect (Yvonne, J. 2002).

The mainstream system has also seen as one that does not pay much attention to victims of crime. Instead the mainstream system put the victims on the spot as the ones to blame for what happens to them. A good example is that of the rape victims who instead of being given the justice they deserve they are blamed for having been raped. However as a result of consistent criticism by feminist groups, this is slowly changing and victims of crime are now being treated in a fair manner. However more needs to be done to ensure that victims of crime are accorded the justice they deserve.

The fourth criticism on the mainstream system is that during the processing of criminal justice sex differences have been ignored totally. Assumptions have been made in regard to the punishment given to both male and female offenders Many criminologists argue that women offenders are given lenient punishments without empirical data to back up the same assumption. Unfortunately this has been the case even after a series if criticisms by feminist movements (Peters, E. 2006).

The last criticism be feminist movements is in regard to the dynamics of power and gender. Although the mainstream criminal system initially presented itself as an objective system it has been as one that is biased against women with the main agenda being to perpetuate male power and oppress the voice of the women. Thus the system has been said to advocate for the subordination of women instead of ensuring that there is gender equality. This has however changed as a result of continued criticism. This is thus another area that feminist criticism has had an effect on the mainstream criminal system (Tierney, J. 2006).

The term hegemony refers to unequal association between the ruling class and the subordinate classes within a given social order which is based on power or even leadership achieved through the production of consent rather than through the use of oppression or force. The term hegemony was initially used in Lenin writings to mean political leadership within a class association, particularly the call for popular leadership in any coalition with the peasantry. In the writings of Antonio Gramsci, it has a more elaborate meaning (Gramsci, 1971). In his literature the term incorporated ethical and rational leadership which goes across the society. Antonio developed the idea as a way of analyzing how the industrial capitalist democracies of Western Europe and the US managed to escape the peoples uprisings prophesized for them by the classical socialism. Without rejecting the socialism idea of centrality and struggle of classes, his main focus was to show precisely that successful class rule involves conception, detailed alliances, concessions, compromises and new political dreams based on the ethics of the society and schemes which are not class dependent, but for the collective good of the whole community. In a nutshell, hegemonic class should be known widely and be accepted by everyone (Hall et al., 1978).

Attaining national popularity would mean that the major classes will be ruling hegemonically via influence or leadership instead of oppression or force. Achieving national popularity and maintaining it proves difficult since its stability is dependent on some conditions which are prone to change any time and they include political, economical, and constant challenges from the minor groups whose main aim is to persuade the people to another hegemonic project (Mouffe, 1979). Also, attainment of hegemony in a particular historical period or time is likely to lead to more intimidating and less hegemonic times. There is likely to be new laws, unpopular policies, and in extreme cases, there can be use of army to handle rebels, conflicts, and even civil wars (Cuneo, 2009).

Gramscian principle of hegemony has been applied in criminology by Stuart Hall and others to strengthen their challenge in the policy crisis in order to appreciate the government reaction to attack which occurred in 1970. It showed that the national popularity enjoyed by the ruling coalition in Britain in 1950s was faced with crisis as the conditions strengthening the after war social democratic conclusion proved difficult to maintain. The challenges emerged from various fronts which included youths, drugs, sexual background, race women, students, industrial relations, crime and the Northern Ireland. The hegemonic rule collapsed in 1970s which was indicated by election victory law, and order crusades, firmer policies of all types of disapproval and conflict, and finally the army intervention in the Northern Ireland (Hall, 1988).

The major drawback of Gramscis notion on hegemony was its attempt to surpass a class understanding of the imitation of capitalism without abandoning the principles significant foundation in economic class associations. This showed that for a class to become hegemonic it must extend its slim class benefits and form a wide based ethico-political scheme not forgetting that hegemony must also be economic. Critics of this theory cited out that there are only two important classes that can be hegemonic and finally, since only the working class had interest in finally stopping misuse they are the only group who could become truly successful (Hall and Jefferson, 1996).The reductionism in Gramscis theory can not be applied practically owing to the fact that a hegemonic scheme must dissociate from their varied class origins for them to be able to popularize themselves. There is also the significance of displacement and rearticulation to the ideological struggle one has to look around for what unifies the hegemonic scheme so that its class characters are all included. The unifying factor is provided by the hegemonic principle which is always found in class (Gramsci, 1971).

Hegemony is still regarded as one of the most useful of the socialist theories. As it was used by Stuart Hall it enabled series of perceptive and prophetic readings of the increase and the national popularity of Thatcherism and the new right in the UK (Gramsci, 1971). People believed that the rise to power of Thatcher to the post of prime minister in Britain and being the longest serving in history was luck she also managed to develop exceptional change of the face of modern Britain. Stuart considered Thatcherism as something more insightful, as a hegemonic scheme except that it was founded on a conflicting grouping of nostalgic ethics, brutal transformation, dictatorial leadership and populist way of thinking. Thatcherism scheme has been compared to the current common sense which can be termed as Blairism, but it can not be understood if there is no regressive modernization and authoritarian populism which is the feature of Thatcherism scheme.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Man has always sort ways of dealing with conflicts and disputes among members of the society in a just and fair manner. Alternative dispute resolution is one among the conflict resolution methods which have gained much acceptance from the public in the recent years. The process involves any form of dispute resolution technique that does not follow the legal judicial process provisions of the law (Maclaury, 2005). It is however worth noting that due to the increasing acceptance of alternative dispute resolution by legal professions, some legal courts allow for its use before a case is tried. Such are viable measures in ensuring equitable justice in resolving disputes between parties. They also provide an efficient and highly cost effective way of resolving disputes. To be realized here is the fact that, of all the existing types of alternative dispute resolution methods, none is applicable to victims of capital crimes (Mareschal, 2002).

The author of this paper gives a discussion on alternative dispute resolution, its history and the different forms or methods it takes. The author also takes a look on the alternative dispute options as accepted in the modern society and how they have influenced the process of executing equitable justice between disputing parties.

History of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)  
The history of alternative dispute resolution is as old as the history of man (Mackie, 2001). Disagreements have always existed among people in the society. However, the modern history of ADR in the American society is evidently marked with the 1960s political and civil conflicts (Banks, 2008). Such conflicts led to the implementation of human rights laws thus giving the people legal provisions for compensation on ill treatment. This was found to increase the number of legal suits in our courts of justice, a factor which led to the popular appreciation of meditation and arbitration as viable ways of resolving dispute. This did not only ensure justice but much reduced the case load in the court system.

Alternative dispute resolution techniques 
There are mainly four type of ADR. First is negotiation. This technique of conflict resolution involves only the type disputing parties voluntarily seeking a solution to their dispute (New York State Unified Court System, 2009). Mediation is another form of dispute resolution technique which mainly involves a third party who chairs the resolution process. It is however to be noted here that the mediator might suggest a solution to the dispute but does not have the legalmoral authority to impose it to the parties. This method is commonly used in resolving civil and ethnic conflicts within a nation or conflicts between nations.

The third method of alternative dispute resolution is the collaborative law. This technique is characterized by the fact that it involves attorneys representing the disputing parties (Mareschal, 2002). The legal professionals are tied by the contractual terms signed with their clients and thus are always acting in the interests of their respective party.

Arbitration is another commonly used technique of ADR. This form of resolution process is differentiated from negotiation in that it involves a third party. Another difference of arbitration from other forms of ADR is that the third party imposes a resolution to the problem. It is due to this reason that such a technique is usually used if the disputing parties had allowed for such in their contract (Maclaury, 2005). Due to the unfairness that could arise from such imposed resolutions, it is a common provision for parties to appeal in the courts of justice.
   
It should however be noted that there are other forms of ADR such as case evaluation, which involves evaluation of the positions of the parties by a third party. The evaluator then gives an assessment of the possible decision that could be made in the law courts. Such evaluations by a legal expert are made to influence the parties in resolving to settle the case outside the law courts. It is still to be noted that family conferences are another ADR technique as it strengthens the mutual relationships between family members thus reducing incidences of ill-treatment among them (Banks, 2008). Courts or individual parties can select a neutral party who contacts a fact searching investigation on the dispute. This technique is mainly applied in resolving intellectual property disputes. Lastly, ADR can take a form in which an organization selects a third party who oversees the resolution of its disputes with complaints.

Changes and options provided in ADR  
Traditional ADR techniques involved the constant physical involvement of the parties in resolution process. It has however been evident that most modern ADR techniques like meditation and arbitration allow for the founding of a resolution by the third party in the absence of the disputing parties (Banks, 2008).
   
Another change in ADR is seen in arbitration. Traditional arbitrations involved a member of the governing authority as the third party who imposes the resolution to the dispute (Center for Democracy and Governance, 1998). However, this has changed in that modern arbitration process has a neutral commercial vendor as the third party. This party should not have strong social or political influence in the process. This avoids imposition of unfair resolutions to the disputing parties. Another change of ADR techniques in the modern society is the legal provisions for appeal by the parties in the event of failure to resolve the dispute outside courtrooms.
   
It is however to be noted that, following the legal provisions for ADR, rules and regulations have been developed thus making the process more reliable. It is due to this reason that such dispute resolution techniques are gaining much acceptance in the public domain. Courts have evidently employed such techniques as neutral fact finding in seeking to identify the underlying facts behind the dispute. Such testimonies have a great impact in ensuring fair and just judgments in our courts.
   
ADR has a number of options. The first is the fact that the two parties involve in the resolution process on voluntary basis (Maclaury, 2005). Even arbitration requires for a legal binding provision on the contract signing to be executed. Another option is that the parties are free to agree or disagree on the disputed matter and can seek judicial justices as an appeal. It is however to be noted that ADR resolution once agreed upon by the two parties are legally binding and violation by any party is subject to the law.
   
ADR has been one way of settling disputes between parties in a contract agreement. This is also applied in disputes involving neglect of a legal responsibility by one party over another. It is however to be realized that such dispute resolution techniques have gained much acceptance in the community due to the increasing respect for human rights space in the modern society. This has also been attributed to the fact that ADR has been legally recognized by our judicial systems.

Rape Background Information

Rape is a form of sexual assault that occurs when, one party performs sexual acts with another without the consent of the second party (Womens Coalition of St. Croix, 2009). If consent is there for the sex act to take place, the consent is forced, coerced or the second party is below the age of consenting or incapable of giving sound consent due to mental impairments. In most cases, the offender is usually male while the victim is normally female. However, some cases of women raping men, men raping other men or even lesbian rape are sporadic. Rape is an illegal act that is physically and psychologically harmful to the victim. Where there is no sexual contact between the two parties, the crime is usually lessened to sexual assault (Womens Coalition of St. Croix, 2009). A large percent of rape cases can be classified as acquaintance rape where the rapist and the victim know each other and as such, the victim is confident enough to drop guard by trusting the assailant, which gives him the ease to strike. Men use rape as a means of social control, revenge, while others feel it is their right to have sex and it is a way of fulfilling their manly expectation. Some rape crimes are committed by ordinary men who seem harmless and this is especially the case in date rapes (Womens Coalition of St. Croix, 2009). Many women associate rape with criminals or men who lurk in the dark waiting for their victims to pounce on.

Acquaintance Rape
A research carried recently from a group of women indicated that 25 percent of the women had been victims of rape or attempted rape. 84 percent of those raped were raped by people they were close to and most of these rapes happened while on dates (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 2008). The research also indicated that six percent of college male students have been involved in rape offences against fellow student, some of them saying that the incident involved more than one assailant. The above data constitutes what can be referred to as acquaintance rape. This is any sexual activity that is not consented, between two parties or even, more, who know each other. It can happen between lovers, friends, spouses or people who have just known each other.
 
Myths on Acquaintance Rape
There are some myths about acquaintance rape that need to be debunked. One myths says that the victim, by the virtue of being in the attackers company deserves the treatment but the reality is that, being in the attackers company or house does not add up to consent. The other myth is that if a woman allows the man to buy her a drink or dinner, she owes him a sexual favor, but in real sense, sex cannot be used to pay back for monetary or material favors given by the man (Meyer, 2000). Other people say that intercourse is inevitable after acts like kissing and touching but the persons right to refuse to consent must be honored, the activity preceding, notwithstanding. People ought to restrain what they claim to be inevitable. There is another myth that has led to the rising cases of date rape. This is the notion that when women say no, they mean yes, which is a backward stereotype that should not be entertained. Finally most people say that woman modes of dressing may provoke a man to commit a rape crime, but once again, people should know how to restrain themselves. Rape is a crime that cannot be justified and it amounts to violation of one of the most precious rights of the victim (Cullen  Bonnie, 2000)
 
Effects of Acquaintance Rape
The image of a rapist has been a nightmare to many women and this haunts their day to day lives. The events following a rape incident are very horrendous to contemplate (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 2008). Initially the victims are too terrified to face their own feelings about the incident and as such get the help they deserve. Then the events haunt them for day, years and others for the rest of their lives. Some do not have the courage to convey their feelings to a third party. It is a form of self denial it is as if they are denying the act happened. The case is even worse when the victim knows the attacker. This is because sometimes the victim may still have feelings of affection to the attacker especially when the attacker was a close acquaintance or a lover. They may feel that the punitive measures meted upon the attacker may be too grave thus leaving her with the situations to grapple with (National Center for Victims of Crimes. 2008). This is why some of the date rape cases go unpunished because they usually go unreported due to the affection weakness of the victim. Some victims have been continuously been raped by the same attacker but they hardly report the cases and in most cases, the failure to report may not be caused by threats from the attacker, it is because of the fallacy from the victim of thinking that reporting the attacker may severe interpersonal or social relationships. This is one of the factors that have led to rise in the number of rapists. This is because most rapists have done it a number of times without getting punished. Some of the victims err by looking for ways of blaming themselves, sometimes questioning their manner of dressing, or their decision to go out for a date, without realizing that they are helping the assailant by using myths to defend the act. Some victim fear that they will be blamed which makes them very apprehensive. Others fear the recurrent of the trauma during the trial process forgetting that the trauma is something that may last for along time. Others even fear to seek medical help because they are afraid of more violations that are likely to take place during the process of examination. Survivors of acquaintance rape often display tendencies of depression, mental instability, untold anxieties and relationship tumults in the future. Others may form a negative attitude towards the people of the gender of the attacker and even shy away from associating with them at any level. Others become socially withdrawn while some cut off communication links with most of the people and become lone figures. There are those who decide to become promiscuous as a way of letting out their frustration while s a few will become very aggressive and intolerant. An emotional impairment that can result is the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder whose symptoms include high levels of fear, mistrust and doubts (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 2008). This leads to a condition called hyper-vigilance in the presence of the people of the gender of the attacker. For women, they see all men as beings with the potential to rape and they tend to display high levels of wariness in their presence.  

Prevention
There should be programs of educating and raising awareness on the issue of acquaintance rape. This should target men who are the main perpetrators, so that they can be educated on responsible behaviors especially when relating with women. Women should also raise their awareness and get knowledge on how to identify acquaintances who can be possible attackers. Some of these signs include emotionally intimidating and demeaning comments. Domineering friends who impose a sense of superiority or have coercive tendencies are potential candidates for this form of crime (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 2008). Women should also be equipped with defensive mechanisms that may help them to thwart incidences of rape. This may include physical combativeness or verbal aggressiveness that may help the victim to scare way the assailant. Reporting of the cases of these forms of rape is very vital in preventing future occurrences because if action is taken, the probability of a recurrence of the incidence is very low. Any one who involves himself in this heinous crime is an enemy and there is no plausible reason as to why this criminal should be let to walk Scot free. Letting them loose will encourage repeated incidents of acquaintance rape in the future.

Criminology

Criminology can be defined as the scientific study of criminal behavior. This entails the nature of the criminal behavior, its extent, causes, and control measures that can be put in place to control it. Criminal behavior can be found in individuals and the society at large. Criminology combines a multiple of disciplines especially in behavioral sciences in its approach to the study of criminal activities. Sociology, Psychology, and Law are the main fields from which criminology is based. Focus in criminology is placed on incidences, forms, causes, and the consequences of criminal activities. Crime is an undesirable thing in all societies. Sociologists regard crime as a social disease. Many theories have come up to explain criminal behavior among human beings.

The theoretical framework in criminology ranges from the classical and rational theories, sociological theories, psychological theories, and the biological theories. Of great interest are the biological theories which assert that criminal behavior emanates from biological processes in the body of the individual. Proponents of these theories hold that criminals differ from non-criminals in biological and physiological make up. When individuals with particular traits interact with the environment, they are likely to be criminals as opposed to the others without such traits. This argument leads to the question as to whether some criminals are born criminal or not. This paper is going to look at the extent to which the biological concept to criminal behavior can be supported by empirical evidence.

Crime as a biological concept
Criminals have always been looked at as unsociable beings and have been subjected to public lynching long before the advent of the new justice system which includes prisons. It was thought that evil spirits were pushing them to commit crime and that the only way to free the society of these evil spirits was by killing the criminals. Crime was also thought to be a sickness or illness that individual criminals suffered from resulting from biological disorder (Eaglehunter, 2008).

Biological theories of crime are associated with the Italian criminologist known as Cesare Lombroso who in 1890s claimed that persistent criminality was associated with atavism, which was a reversion to an archaic stage of human development. He studied the features of the skulls and the facial appearances of the criminals before making his conclusions. Scholars of the mid 20th century led by William Sheldon came up with types of individuals associating them with criminal behavior. He referred to the athletic individuals as mesomorphs and said that they are more likely to commit crime in comparison to the other types. The other types of individuals were the tall and thin ectomorphs, and the soft and rounded endomorphs (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).

Although no much attention has been given to these earlier biological theories, research into this area has come up with intriguing findings. Recent research by Harvard professors has it that, no individual is born a criminal but many are born with specific traits that incline them to criminal activities. They argue that offenders have a difference in physique, intelligence, and personality when compared to non-offenders (Leo, Castronovo, 1985). These scholars insinuated that crime was hereditary and therefore capable of running through families. To these scholars, criminals exhibit similar characteristics which includes low IQ scores and that they appear to be more muscular. They said that children born of criminal parents had a higher chance of turning into criminals in comparison to those born from non-criminal parents.

During the 1960s, research by biologists revealed several genetic abnormalities in the human cells. For instance, female and male chromosomes in normal instances are known to be XX and XY respectively. Males are traditionally aggressive and violent, and therefore any abnormality in their genetic formation as in the XYY will mean being as twice as aggressive and violent. Men with the XYY-chromosomes had a higher number in correctional facilities like the prison and mental hospitals, and this suggests how genetics could influence crime. Proponents of the criminal gene, base on the studies carried out on identical twins which showed that such twins had a higher rate of criminal concordance when compared to non-identical twins (Eaglehunter, 2008).

Other studies at the University of Virginia concluded that children might be born criminals. The human genetics experts believed that any defects in the human character including criminal behavior are to be found in the DNA make up of the individual (Masters, 2007). Scientists claim that genetic make-up is solely responsible for the behavioral characteristic human beings posses.

Impacts of the born-criminal attitude
The general conception that criminals are born and not made has led to prejudices and general assumptions that criminals are inherently defective in intellect and morals of the society. To solve such issues of criminality, criminals were to spend the rest of their lives behind bars and subjected to sterilization to prevent them from siring children who will be future criminals in the society. An individual could be confined in an institution for alleged hereditary defectives which was thought to be incurable. The individual might have committed no crime, but basing on the biological and physical characteristics, he was sent to an institution possibly, for life. This was based on what was known as eugenic criminology. The misuse of eugenics had disastrous results as seen in the case of Adolf Hitler who in his efforts to improve the gene pool of the Nazis, resorted to the massacre of the Jews (Rafter, 1998). 

Scientists therefore have been promoting their idea of genetic influence on human behavior at the expense of the Romantic notion of the 18th century projected by a French philosopher by the name Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was of the view that there was no fundamental perversity in the human heart but that, all bad behavior was the outcome of the society itself. A child inheriting traits of personality from the parents is an irrefutable fact however, the child also learns most of the behavioral traits from the environment in which she is raised. Criminal activities are better defined as deviant behavior. Deviance is socially created and therefore can be corrected by addressing the causative agents which are found in the society.

Crime as a social concept
Emile Durkheim is considered as the father of sociology, and in his analysis of the criminal activities, he concluded that social structures have a great influence on human behavior. He believed that crime was a natural behavior and its composition was laid in the many forces that were to be found in the society. His ideas were embraced by the Chicago School of Sociology in the 20th century which focused on the society as the embryonic force of criminal behavior (Gado, 2009). The Chicago School of thought was inspired by the increase in criminal activities in the United States resulting from the effects of the great depression which had changed the political, financial, and social landscape in America. Criminals who were notorious were regarded as heroes in the society as banks, corporations and the state were looked at as the enemies of the people. Criminal activities were often seen as behaviors resulting from the unjustified societal forces (Gado, 2009).

Children are not born criminals and that any criminal behavior they may posses is an expression of failure by the family and the society at large to offer the required social and emotional care to the children. Most of those involved in violent crimes are from troubled home environments in which they are raised. Enough evidence has been put forward to support the assertion that early childhood experiences plays a great role in shaping the character of a majority of people. Those who have been systematically subjected to abuse and denial of loving care have been found to develop neuro-chemical vulnerabilities. This gives the vulnerable children a good ground to be violent because they have experienced such. These children are emotionally subdued and they dont do anything unless it the excitement of pursuing their prey to release the accumulated tension of being victimized (Batmanghelidj, 2008).

Refuting the biological concept
Simple terms of DNA can not be used to infer human behavior. The predispositions might be there but how the individual will shape them is what matters most. Environment has to be incorporated to understand human behavior comprehensively. The case of Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee who was a serial killer can be used as a good example of how biology can be deficient in explaining crime. Jeffrey was brought up by a self-obsessed mother and a largely absentee father. He lacked the parental love and care, leading him to loose humanity. His brother David did not however turn to be a criminal despite sharing in the DNA composition as his brother (Masters, 2007). There are many more examples in which, when put to test, the biological concept has failed to hold.
   
As much as there can be biological aspects to crime, environment plays a major role in shaping an individuals characters including behavior. Crime is a very complex issue in the society and therefore cannot be handled with a single mind. It is evident that abnormal chromosomes do exist but this cannot solely account for the criminal behavior that we see in our society. Malformations found in the chromosomes are not closely related to criminality and therefore explanations are needed. A development in the intelligent tests has helped mankind to realize that crime cannot be attributed to the biological traits as it was believed by the eugenic criminologists. This led to the weakening of the notion that crime is an innate behavior that an individual was born with, and that he had no control over it. If criminal activity were to a result from biological mal-adaptations, then the criminals will have the right to challenge any sentence meted at them for committing a particular crime. Criminal behavior is best explained by nurture as opposed to nature. Its therefore unjust to label an individual as a criminal basing on his biological traits alone.

Parole and Probation in the United States

The criminal justice system in the U.S. is composed of mainly three arms that is, the police, courts and the prisons or corrections. For the purpose of this paper I will discuss the difference between parole, probation and pardon as ways of punishment under criminal law in United States, which are applied to various offenders.  The judge orders sentence to a criminal offender accordingly as per the nature of crime. When the crime committed is not very serious, the judge orders the convict to serve in the community for a specified period of time until he or she is convinced that the prisoner is reformed (Begnaud). This is probation. The convicted offender under probation is always under the observation of a probation officer who reports to the judge about the progress of the convicted person. Parole, on the other hand is release of a criminal after serving part or whole of the jail term (Joan 3). The release is conditional and the convicted individual is allowed to interact with community members for a specific parole period. The criminal is under supervision until the recommended period is complete. In many states Parole is granted only under the permission of commission or board of parole. The convicted person must observe the conditions of parole failure to this result to revocation of the offer and the person is re-imprisoned (Joan 3).

In addition, the judge may decide to pardon fully the convicted person of all his or her criminal offences. The convicted person is forgiven fully of the crimes committed and set free (Weihopen 51). Pardon is only given by the governor of state where the person has been imprisoned or in the state where his case occurs. The only other person who can give pardon to a prisoner is the president of United States (United states Department of Justice). Constitution in many countries gives the president the power to pardon prisoners under what is referred to as presidents prerogatives of mercy. It happens to those who have served jail term for a long period of time and the president is convinced of their reformed behavior. This was just an overview about the three elements of criminal law and the following paragraphs discuss each intensively.

Probation 
Probation as described above is one of the ways through which a person who has committed simple crime can be punished so that he or she cannot repeat such mistake at a later time (Weihopen 54). The court in its capacity through judges may decide to place a person who is convicted of doing crime under probation for a given period. The defendant is put under probation instead of been sent to serve jail term.  Probation officers in United States are found at various the city, state, county or federal level in a place with court or jurisdiction. One difference between probation and parole is that a criminal who has been released on parole must have served jail term even if it is for a period of one day. During probation period the convicted person is deemed to be out of trouble because he or she does not face harsh treatment in prison. The offenders under probation are observed by probation officers and other correctional specialists who monitor the behavior of such person (Dean 41). The observation or monitoring of the offender is to prevent them from doing crimes while under probation.

The convicted party is allowed to meet members of the community through serving light tasks that are given by probation officers. The officers live in the community to supervise the work been done by the offender.  The officers must report the progress of the individuals to their seniors so as to recommend on their release (Dean 46).  In probation there are officers who are concerned with monitoring of convicted person behavior during probation period. These officers are known as case managers and offer counseling services to the offenders in addition, they help to rehabilitate the offenders through creation of rehabilitation plans that are followed by offenders when out of prison. The difference between probation officers and parole officers is that, where as probation officers supervise offenders who are under probation sentence, parole officers supervise offenders who are from prison.

To work efficiently, probation officers work in conjunction with the families and close friends of the convicted persons. This will help to give details and information about the progress and success of the offenders. The officers work by meeting the offenders at their homes, work place or rehabilitation centers instead of the offenders meeting the officers in their offices. Working in conjunction with community organizations such as religious groups, local residents and social groups will provide enough information that will help in monitoring of offenders behavior (Joan 13). In United States some offenders under probation are allowed to wear electronic gadgets that will make monitoring easy. Their location and movement is monitored very well by probation officers. Some probation officers encourage offenders to enroll in any institution that will help to train in particular areas such as carpentry, masonry, tailoring or any other technical field. Those who had been convicted of    substance abuse are encouraged to attend substance rehabilitation centers. This will help them to stop drug abuse and be reformed. Probation officers work closely with adults and juveniles as a way of promoting common understanding about the effects of crime in the society.  In some localities and states, there are special departments headed by surveillance officers who have full authority to arrest and are sometimes armed to protect them from harm.

The officers work as representatives of courts in rural areas through investigation of the convicted background. They write reports about the observations made and recommend sentence where it is applicable (Begnaud). The best thing about probation sentence is that the probation officer negotiates with family members of the accused to review the sentence. The officers are required to testify in court about their findings and recommendations. Probation officers give updates to the judge about the offenders compliance with probation sentence. This will help the court to make recommendations about the offenders progress.

Probation officer can handle a number of probation cases and the capacity of the officer to handle such cases depends on the needs of the offender and the risk associated with probation sentence (Dean 56). For instance, offenders who  have committed higher risk offences makes the probation officer to spent a lot of time in handling their situations. In addition, those who need more time for counseling consume a lot of case managers time. In United States a probation officer can handle between twenty to more than one hundred cases at a time as a requirement of jurisdiction.

Information technology has made the work of probation officers to be easy and they can handle higher number of cases by working from home. Use of computers, fax machines and telephones has made it easy for probation officers to handle probation monitoring from home at any time. Technology advancement such as use of drug screening machines has helped probation officers to assist offenders who have been convicted of substance abuse. The use of electronic devices by offenders has also made it easy for probation officers to monitor the movements and location of offenders. Since probation officers deal with criminals who are under probation they are allowed to carry firearm or any other weapon that is used for protection. They are allowed to meet court deadlines and this means a lot of travelling and thorough supervision. It is a very demanding job and time consuming that needs a lot of commitments.

Parole
Parole is another criminology term which is almost related to probation but it is different from b probation in some aspects. Legally, parole is the early release of a prisoner after serving jail term for a specified period of time (Joan 18). The released prisoner is under continued monitoring by parole officer to ensure that he or she complies with certain parole terms. The release is supervisory and it is more of rehabilitation than retribution because the offender has already served his or her jail term.  Parole should not be confused fro probation because in parole the offender is given the chance of serving the reminder of sentence out of prison.
    
In criminal terms parole means supervised release of a prisoner before completion of jail term. The offenders under parole are considered to be serving their sentence.  This is one area that makes it different from probation. The offenders under parole are made to follow parole conditions otherwise they risk been returned to court. A specific form of parole is medical parole or compassionate release which is made on humanitarian grounds. The release of offenders under parole is made as a way of compassion from the judge while under probation the convicted person is under observation (Dean 18). There are conditions to be met for a parole to be given. The offender must show that he or she is in a position of obeying the law, is willing to work, can maintain the required rules for parole and he or she is in a position of refraining from drugs. Parole aims at making the offender get reformed by serving the community for the remaining time of sentence. It is a good form of punishment because the offender is made to feel guilt for the crimes he or she committed in the society.
  
In United States some states practice mandatory supervision other than parole. Mandatory supervision means that an inmate is released before completion of sentence due to legal system that does not allow criminals to be freed. For instance in Texas a prisoner who has been jailed for ten years and during the first five years he or she shows signs of reforms is set free under mandatory supervision (Joan 20). This is in a way a form of parole because the offenders have not finished his or her sentence but he or she is set free. Parole board has the authority of determining whether an offender is going to be paroled or not. The board interviews a prisoner who is deemed to be paroled if the board is convinced about the good conduct of the offender he or she is put under parole. Some crimes cannot qualify for parole such as murder, espionage or death penalty sentence. The offender under parole is required to meet with parole officer unlike in probation where the probation officer meets with the offender under probation. The officers monitor the progress of the paroled convict behavior such as being at home during specific set time, refraining from drug use and maintaining his or position in employment.
  
The convicted person who is under parole is supposed to observe some requirements as set by the court and the parole officer must ensure that the offender abides by these guidelines. When the offender fails to abide by these rules an arrest warrant is issued and immediately the warrant has been issued parole period is stopped (Dean 57). The parole board may decide to terminate the parole period before the end of the specified period by the court when they see that parole restrictions are no longer needed by the society. These are some elements that differentiate parole from probation and pardon.

Pardon
This is pure forgiveness of crime and any penalty that is associated with the crime. The only person who is allowed to pardon a crime is the president or high profile church leaders (Weihopen 67). This factor differentiates pardon from parole and probation. Many countries are practicing pardon and those who are forgiven are offenders who have been falsely convicted. In United States the constitution gives the president power to pardon offenders who have committed federal crimes. The president is empowered to pardon crimes against United States but not cases of impeachment. He is empowered to grant conditional pardons, remissions of fines, communication of sentence and amnesties. The president in his capacity can grant or deny granting petition. Office of pardon Attorney must recommend for any case of pardon and the n the president is entitled to accept the pardon or deny.

Pardon has been a controversial issue and many critics say that pardon has been as a way of political gain rather than administration of justice. For an offender to be pardon he or she must serve at least five years (Weihopen 68). This is the requirement of Justice Department but the constitution empowers the president to pardon an offender at any time. However, the offender is only pardoned when he or she shows good signs of a reformed person or he is in a position to lead a changed life in the society. He president is convinced by the office of pardon Attorney that a specific prisoner is in apposition of being pardoned. Although the president may refuse to give pardon there is nobody who should question about his action and the courts must comply with presidents actions. The offender must be guilt of some mistakes so as to be pardoned.

The president can only pardon an offender for only offences that are recognized by federal law. The president can however, out of his mercy forgive some offenders who have served long term jail term and the offender shows sign of reformation. Governor who is in charge of fifty states can also pardon offenses that are of criminal nature. Pardon is different form parole and probation because the power to pardon is only vested to one individual b y the constitution while in the other circumstances the court is overall (Joan 21).

The court in pardon only does what the president commands and cannot oblige. Pardoning has received a lot of objections because it is believed that justice does not prevail in any criminal offence. This is because a criminal is set free to interact with society members and the chance of such a person committing crimes is very high. However, it is a good way of reducing the stigma of the convicted especially when it was false accusation.

The pardoned offender must disclose that he or she has been pardon from prison so that if it was a matter of false imprisonment the plaintiff is given the chance to find for justice by finding the real offender. Those who have been pardoned have the right of enforcing procedures that will enable them to restore their civil rights in the society (Weihopen 69).  The legal systems in many countries that practice pardon has been in the forefront to make sure that justice is found for those who  have been convicted and those who feel they have been wronged because if it does not do so some individuals suffer innocently. To pardon needs a lot of consultation between the concerned parties because sometimes this is considered as abuse of power since most legal systems argue that there is nobody who is above the law.

This paper examines the differences between parole, probation and pardon in United States and it has clearly outlined the major differences through elaboration of how each works the parties concerned and how it should be done. The legal systems in United States are concerned with execution of such principles and their rulings must be respected. The most practiced is probation and parole although in few cases is pardon recommended.