Table of Contents
Policies are put in place by the government or the ruling body in a given geographical area to enforce law and order in that area. Those who violate the set rules are considered as offenders and are normally subjected to punishment as stipulated in the policies. The offenders are normally entitled to free and fair judgment where their argument is heard and considered before action is taken on them. However, as always, most policies are not always fair in terms of their effects on society. While they may protect a section of the society, they may also be oppressing some individuals in that same society. One such policy is the Article 10 Section 20-501 of the Tucson City Code which prohibits the soliciting of employment, donations, services, business or contributions from the occupants of any moving vehicle on a street or highway (American Legal Publishing Corporation).
The police enforce the law in Tucson who ensure that they arrest and prosecute the violators of such crimes. The history behind the creation of the law was the many instances where such people soliciting for donations endangered the pedestrians or the occupants of motor vehicles. The practice of soliciting for any forms of favors from people in vehicles was also noted to affect the orderly flow vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The need to secure people and avert accidents or traffic jams on the streets and highways led to the establishment of the policy (American Legal Publishing Corporation). The purposes behind the policy are clearly stated in Section 20-500 of Article 10.
Further, the policy explains the meaning of a street or highway as the entire width between the boundary lines of every way including the traffic medians. This clarification helps to avoid complications of law interpretation in a courtroom. Article 10 at Section 20-502 also stipulates the punishment of such a crime is imprisonment of not more than 24 hours, up to $250 fine or both (American Legal Publishing Corporation). The offender can also be punished with community service at the rate of $10 per hour. It is important to state the various strengths and loopholes of the policy and the possible recommendations that may be added to the law to improve it.
127 our experts are availableright now
Strengths
Various strengths are inherent in the policy. One of the strengths is the ability of the policy to reduce roadside crimes such as carjacking and kidnapping of people. According to Ehrlich, the act of a person participating in an illegitimate activity is not a matter of rational choice but rather a predisposition of such an individual to commit the crime (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). This proves that the intentions of people can never be known and as such, some of the intentions may be heinous and could result in the harming of others. The people involved in the soliciting of donations or employment, for example, may be carjackers who end up fooling the vehicle drivers and robbing them in the process. Alternatively, some of the drivers may also be predisposed to illegitimate activities such as abduction. Such drivers may end up fooling those soliciting for aid into going with them especially if they are naïve individuals like children. The presence of many people soliciting for donations or employment on the streets may also present a security risk for innocent pedestrians who may get mugged by these people. Criminals may also join those soliciting on the streets and harm the pedestrians passing by.
The rational-choice theory is also very elaborate in explaining the genesis of crime in the society. One of the reasons stated is an inequity in the economy where there is a section of the society that is extremely poor (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). The section of the society is thus vulnerable to committing robbery-related crimes as a way of sustaining themselves. Soliciting for donations or employment at the roadside provides a fertile ground for the potential criminals to steal from innocent motorists in their vehicles or pedestrians passing by.
The theory also states that the best way of minimizing crimes is by utilizing crime-control strategies such as altering crime setting (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). Altering of a crime setting refers to a strategy where a situation where crime can be committed is eliminated by reducing the opportunities of crime commission. Through outlawing of the soliciting actions on the streets, the administration of the city can eliminate the chances of pedestrians or motorists being harmed by those soliciting for aid. Criminalizing the soliciting of donations or any other favors on the streets and highways has therefore contributed to the safety of pedestrians and motorists in Tucson.
The policy also helps to save on time for both the pedestrians and motorists in Tucson. It is a known fact that having people that are soliciting for any forms of favors on the roadside has the natural effect of increasing the number of pedestrians along a road. Those soliciting for help normally reduce the space for other pedestrians to walk on the pavements. The congestion that is caused reduces the flow rate of pedestrian traffic thus wasting their time. At the same time, pedestrians tend to accumulate over time due to their reduced ease of movement. The increased number of pedestrians crossing roads at a specific period has been noted to cause traffic congestion thus wasting time for motorists too (Rosen, 2013). Additionally, the motorists tend to stop to listen to those soliciting them into giving them support. The stopping of vehicles at points where the solicitors are also contributed to increased traffic congestion in cities. The policy is very effective in saving time for both pedestrians and motorists in Tucson by reducing traffic congestion caused by soliciting.
Critique
As stated earlier, the policy has several loopholes that were not addressed by the policymakers. According to the social learning theory of criminology, individuals tend to repeat behaviors that have positive consequences (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). Consequently, they also avoid those that have negative consequences. To determine whether an illegitimate action is worth repeating, the offenders normally weigh between the rewards and costs of the action that they are about to do. If the rewards surpass the costs, the offenders are more likely to repeat the crime numerous times.
The punishment for soliciting for donations, employment or other favors from people in vehicles on the streets and highways of Tucson is just 24 hours imprisonment or a $250 fine (American Legal Publishing Corporation). On the other hand, it is possible for an individual such as a homeless beggar to collect more than the $250 fine from soliciting the motorists. The punishment is very small as compared to the rewards of the crime. Less than 24 hours of imprisonment can also be considered as a fair punishment for an individual and may not have a major effect in derailing such a person from soliciting for say work or donation. The minimal punishments can, therefore, encourage people to continue soliciting at the streets and highways. Further, the lack of clarification in the policy on what should be done to offenders who repeat the soliciting offense is another great loophole.
There is also another major loophole that proves that the Tucson City administration has not eliminated the problem of soliciting. One of the import factors of having laws is to ensure that they deter people from committing a crime (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). The action of just arresting those soliciting at the roadside is not effective in eliminating the social challenges causing the greater problem of soliciting. Some of those soliciting on the streets are in search of employment or contributions from the occupants of vehicles driving by. These individuals suffer economically and turn to soliciting as an alternative to solving their economic challenges. Arresting such people and not helping them in any way thus illustrates a failure on the part of the administration and can be correctly considered as a morally inappropriate action.
Recommendations
There are several actions which if taken can help in ensuring that the loopholes in the policy are adequately addressed. One of the most noticeable loopholes, the likelihood of an individual repeating the crime several times because of the minimal punishment, can be solved by expanding the policy. The policy can be expanded to provide harsher punishment for individuals who are consistently arrested for the same crime of soliciting occupants of moving vehicles. The change would deter people from repeating the crime because of the higher cost as compared to the rewards of breaking that law.
Based on the social learning theory, when the costs of committing a crime are higher, the individuals are less likely to consider the behavioral choice leading to that harsher punishment (Rosenfeld & Messner). Extending the policy to punish second-time offenders with a greater fine alongside several days in jail could be a possible consideration. Also, the general punishment of soliciting for favors from occupants of vehicles should be generally increased. This would make police officers more determined to arrest offenders with the knowledge that they will be severely punished. The offenders, on the other hand, are less likely to commit a crime where they are more likely to be arrested and face harsher punishment.
The other loophole is the gaping economic problem that causes people to resolve into soliciting for help from the streets and highways. One of the major causes of crime in an area is the economic problems that affect part or the whole society in general (Rosenfeld & Messner, 2013). Solving economic problems such as unemployment would be an effective measure of reducing crime. Similarly, having economic reforms in Tucson could help in reducing the number of people arrested for soliciting for contributions or employment on the roadside.
The administration may for example set aside some funds to be used in supporting community development donations and other forms of contributions. By doing so, the society of the city can have a more formal way of accessing aid to support their projects. The use of population databases has been very effective in health coverage in many countries (AbouZahr, 2015). Tucson can utilize that same knowledge to develop a database for their unemployed population making it easier for potential employers in the city to select from the pool of labor thus; unemployed people can get jobs without having to solicit at the roadside.
Conclusion
Many benefits are attached to the Article 10 section 20-500 policy of Tucson. These benefits include reduced crime on the highways and street and the reduced traffic congestion caused by people soliciting aid from the occupants of vehicles. However, the policy also has weaknesses such as the light punishments given to offenders and the inability to address the economic problems causing people to commit the crime. The recommendations that were made include the need to allocate public money to fund the community project and increasing of the magnitude of punishment to which offenders are subjected. The database could completely wipe out from the streets people that are soliciting for employment. By incorporating the recommendations into the policy, the city of Tucson will have improved its policy against soliciting on the streets.
