Sociology

Dear Mr. Friedman
I have recently read your book and found it challenging, brilliantly written and well argued. This book provides a general view about the crimes taking place in our society. Other authors while giving their view about criminology fear to express their feeling but this book provides awareness about increasing rate of criminology and the aftereffects of criminology in the society. Moreover this book deals with the criminological events better than the previous books on the same issue. While reading I found some strengths and weaknesses in your book which I would like to share with you.

This extensive history, idiosyncratic details and solicitous study is an important blend of research highlighting the apprehensions between the American liberty and its costs. Giving a brief section on the colonial era, religious duties, belief and principle in criminal justice, you have effectively discussed progressive changes in the 19th century specifically the advancement of prison, the professionalization of armed forces, the detonation of swindle in the modern age of mobiles. The book also provides vast view that a colonial court because of having religious orientation penalizes not only the major crimes of individual or property but also the minor crimes that are not considered as a crime. Such courts rely on public punishments like confiscations of property or other punishment of humiliation rather than imprisonment. The book also highlights the crimes in 20th century, the increase in crime with the increasing controversies on negotiation, death punishment and the laws dealing with ethics. It has been highlighted that 20th century has changed the types of crimes and more violent crimes has aroused in this century due to the mechanized world. The thing which I like the most is that the book offers strong arguments to prove the theory like judgments about crime, and what to do about it, come out of a specific time and place.

Although I agree with your views but I found it a bit monotonous. Political claims are discussed with no realistic support. Even while discussing the history it was not well supported with the objectives. While reading the book I found that the future prediction discussed is very diminutive. The solution to the criminal problems in the future is not argued properly which is the downside of this book. Very few practical solutions are provided which is not enough for the problems discussed. Perhaps--just perhaps--the siege of crime may be the price we pay for a brash, self-loving, relatively free and open society. (History Book Club alternate) In general you quoted some extensive key and then proved it with single sketch. According to me it should be explained with few more reasonable examples which could have explained your point and your book more accurately. For example you argued that armed forces generally believe in fighting fire with fire, stating Police brutality was part of a more general system of police power. It rested on a simple credo the battalions of law and order had the right, if not the duty, to be tough as nails with criminals. Force was the only language the criminal understood.(Pg.361). In this book all in all no substitutions to the schemes were offered that was condemned.

This book has an everlasting consequence on peoples life. It has made us aware of the criminological acts in the society by providing us with the vast knowledge on various topics brilliantly in an optimistic and hopeful way. Though it has some weaknesses but the overall book is intelligently managed and highlights important criminological issues of the society. The book deserves our appreciation.
Yours Sincerely