The male case is a first time federal offender and was sentenced to 2 years for 4 counts of robbery and 3 counts of the use of an imitation firearm. Robbery is considered a violent offence, but the issue with this it is generalizing all robbery as violent. The victims of the robbery only received minor injury of hitting, slapping and striking. Mild psychological harm to victims where their was no victim impact statement and where the victim even refused medical help. In my opinion, a person should be charged with a violent crime only when the victims are disabled physically or emotionally that it can affect their everyday life. The victims may have been embarrassed to be robbed, but the offender only took material object such as money and their phones which can be replaced, whereas if the offender truly wanted to cause physical harm they would have a real firearm instead of imitation one which would be reason to be charged for a violence offence because that can cause harm to the victim.
…show more content…
This is the example of generalizing a crime and not looking at the specifics, the testing done by the police show the offender recidivism of this male offender is very low. There has been an empirical study to understand what causes a person to re-offend in the cases of “robbery and aggravated burglary reoffending was predicted less by alcohol misuse, than drug misuse, or financial issues” (2,
This is the example of generalizing a crime and not looking at the specifics, the testing done by the police show the offender recidivism of this male offender is very low. There has been an empirical study to understand what causes a person to re-offend in the cases of “robbery and aggravated burglary reoffending was predicted less by alcohol misuse, than drug misuse, or financial issues” (2,