The premise underpinning the social responsibility approach to criminal justice rests on five essential philosophical elements, which include the criminal justice system operating by observing human dignity; the society developing a wider sense of interdependence and shared responsibility when aIDressing crime; and that there is the need to aIDress socioeconomic factors persistently. Other components of social responsibility approach to crime include development of processes that have the purpose of breaking cycles of vengeance and violence, and the ideal of the criminal justice system should be viewed in the light of peace, instead of security. It is evident that Robyn Hemnani’s of social responsibility approach is consistent with this view in the sense that it blames crime on the society, implying that the society has the capability of aIDressing crime. I agree with the view that crimes are increasingly becoming a social problem; as a result, combating crime poses the need to have an insight towards factors that influence the society and affect human behavior, which provides an in depth understanding of why individuals engage in criminal activities. In aIDition, it is imperative to recognize that the nature of the present societal discourse plays an integral role in explaining crime causation. For instance, cyber crimes have been on the rise because of technological advancements. Therefore, the law enforcement and society has the responsibility of adjusting their crime prevention methods and devise strategies and programs aimed at preventing cyber crimes and enhancing consumer protection. The underlying argument is that social variables are extremely significant in explaining criminal behavior. The implication from this observation is that aIDressing criminal behaviors requires the society to aIDress social problems. Potential avenues for preventing crime include the use of social programs to aid the youth in combating their criminal behavior and enforcing positive family and community relationships. Hemnani’s view of similar treatment for all offenses contradicts with the restorative nature of the criminal justice system. It is imperative for the justice system to draw the line between crimes that need restoration or punishment.

The use of social problems to explain crime suggests that crime prevention can take place through social development, which is aimed at aIDressing the socio-economic risk factors causing crime. The risk factors that individuals face, especially during childhood and youth, places individuals at risk of developing criminal behaviors, becoming victims or both. It is evident that the conventional approach to crime prevention entails the use of improved security systems and law enforcement. I agree that this is an essential response to criminal behavior; however, it offers a short-term effect on reducing the levels of crime. The flaw in this methodology is that it ignores the root causes of criminal behaviors. The suggestion by Giovanni Namdar to deploy a global action in aIDressing crime is justified, especially with the increasing prevalence of lower-class neighborhoods. In relation to the relationship between technology and crime, it is a fact that technology has aggravated crime levels. Similarly, the law enforcement can make use of technology to combat crimes that are technological in nature. Technology can be used in lowering the crime levels. Therefore, as criminals are increasingly relying on technology for committing a crime, the law enforcement and society can make use of technology to tackle the occurrence of criminal activities through communication and collaboration. I agree with Giovanni Namdar’s view of treating drug offenders differently; this is because the criminal justice system should aim at corrective instead of punishment. There is room for rehabilitation of drug offenses. For the case of sex offender policies, there is no need for change in such policies. Such offenses are grave, and potential criminals need to learn from these lessons.