Page 144 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 144 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
138
to deviate greatly from the expected “normal” penalty. This creates an option for abuse, one that may be overly excessive or overly lenient.
A third type of punishment is restitution. Restitution has been viewed as restorative rather than punitive. However some maintain that:
requiring criminals to make restitution is really a form of punishment. Restitution is at the core of our notion of what punishment is all about. Restitution may be best form of punishment in highly complex industrialized societies, where many ends are simultaneously sought by punishment and where the costs of stressing certain other forms of punishment can be prohibitive. Restitution is an improved technique of punishment completely compatible with judicial precedent defining punishment and offering a solution to the generally recognized problem of widely divergent sentences for similar crimes.398
This research demonstrates the most important type of punishment for vipers, at least non-violent ones, is restorative justice. Repaying the wasted costs of a bogus police search, reimbursing a bilked insurance company, or re-establishing a company’s damaged reputation is paramount. “The principle of damage done, and not that of moral turpitude or individualized treatment or deterrence should regulate the sentence an offender receives.”399 Again, in the instance of the non-violent offender, the public seems to believe that hoaxers deserve a second chance, an opportunity to redeem themselves for their behavior. “Restorative justice has much in common with forgiveness. It does not forget or condone, but recognizes the wrong requiring the “guilty party” to take responsibility in a “personal and social
398 Charles F. Abel and Frank H. Marsh, Punishment and Restitution, A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal, Congressional Information Service Inc., Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1984.
399 Ibid.
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 144 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 138 to deviate greatly from the expected “normal” penalty. This creates an option for abuse, one that may be overly excessive or overly lenient. A third type of punishment is restitution. Restitution has been viewed as restorative rather than punitive. However some maintain that: requiring criminals to make restitution is really a form of punishment. Restitution is at the core of our notion of what punishment is all about. Restitution may be best form of punishment in highly complex industrialized societies, where many ends are simultaneously sought by punishment and where the costs of stressing certain other forms of punishment can be prohibitive. Restitution is an improved technique of punishment completely compatible with judicial precedent defining punishment and offering a solution to the generally recognized problem of widely divergent sentences for similar crimes.398 This research demonstrates the most important type of punishment for vipers, at least non-violent ones, is restorative justice. Repaying the wasted costs of a bogus police search, reimbursing a bilked insurance company, or re-establishing a company’s damaged reputation is paramount. “The principle of damage done, and not that of moral turpitude or individualized treatment or deterrence should regulate the sentence an offender receives.”399 Again, in the instance of the non-violent offender, the public seems to believe that hoaxers deserve a second chance, an opportunity to redeem themselves for their behavior. “Restorative justice has much in common with forgiveness. It does not forget or condone, but recognizes the wrong requiring the “guilty party” to take responsibility in a “personal and social 398 Charles F. Abel and Frank H. Marsh, Punishment and Restitution, A Restitutionary Approach to Crime and the Criminal, Congressional Information Service Inc., Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1984. 399 Ibid. |
