The criminal justice system is influenced by many factors, one of the most important being society (Kraska 296). Late modernity makes sense of criminal justice behavior by situating the criminal justice apparatus within larger social, cultural and political contexts (296). This orientation has as much to do with understanding the times we live in, as with understanding the criminal justice system (296). Late modernity also places a premium on understanding the entire landscape instead of focusing primarily on the criminal justice system (296). This broader focus allows for policy creation that benefits society and the criminal justice system. David Garland argues, “today’s world of crime control and criminal justice was not brought into being
…show more content…
Late modernity would argue that this tightening of security and limits on freedom is for the benefit of the public, and that the public is in agreement with these policies because the safety of the general population should be placed about the freedoms of one person. Richard Ericson argues, “freedom from fear and threat has become the new focus of … policy and practice,” (321). He further argues that individuals and organizations are on “an ever-elusive quest for freedom from fear,” (322). As a result of this quest, society has become content with policies stepping on their individual freedoms if it means they can sleep safely at night. This acceptance of government oversight comes from a desire to be free from worry and avoid having to believe the worst could happen. Society has a large influence on the criminal justice system and late modernity interprets this influence to be one that needs examination and monitoring. Late modernity sees the willingness of people to have their personal freedoms abridged in times of political, social or economic crisis if it means their personal safety is less at risk. Today’s policies are a direct result of movements in the 20th century and terrorist attacks that have threatened societal norms. These threats have resulted in policies that have worked to restructure society and return order to
Late modernity would argue that this tightening of security and limits on freedom is for the benefit of the public, and that the public is in agreement with these policies because the safety of the general population should be placed about the freedoms of one person. Richard Ericson argues, “freedom from fear and threat has become the new focus of … policy and practice,” (321). He further argues that individuals and organizations are on “an ever-elusive quest for freedom from fear,” (322). As a result of this quest, society has become content with policies stepping on their individual freedoms if it means they can sleep safely at night. This acceptance of government oversight comes from a desire to be free from worry and avoid having to believe the worst could happen. Society has a large influence on the criminal justice system and late modernity interprets this influence to be one that needs examination and monitoring. Late modernity sees the willingness of people to have their personal freedoms abridged in times of political, social or economic crisis if it means their personal safety is less at risk. Today’s policies are a direct result of movements in the 20th century and terrorist attacks that have threatened societal norms. These threats have resulted in policies that have worked to restructure society and return order to