Similarly to Emile Durkheim’s view of collective consciousness , according to the roman thinker Marcus Cicero punishment is acceptable as it provides social order. The statement goes further by developing the idea that ruthless punishment is approved if in the public interest. The deterrent effect according to Cicero is permanent when it comes to divine punishment as it is impossible to avoid. The english writer J. R.R Tolkien said divine punishment is a blessing and gift that brings nothing other then good (Tolkien and Tolkien, 2014). If this is an accepted proclamation then punishment in society is not morally acceptable. On the basis it is challenging for someone to predict future actions and can not punish or act forcefully towards somebody …show more content…
The belief is there is a certain system that is designed to deter criminal behaviour and that crimes must be dealt with robustly. The two key types of deterrence, are individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence is concerned with the delinquent itself in committing criminal acts and the mental thinking in contrast to general deterrence which is a message aimed at the wider community or public (Scott and Flynn, 2014). Preventing future crimes through punishment was an idea that developed from the respected works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.The argument stated by Beccaria was that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed andbased on damage done to society. Hence punishment in this case is justified in terms of upholding social values in society. The pleasure gained from the offence should be outweighed by the punishment carried out. Therefore the individual should be deterred from carrying out criminal acts in the future which is safer for society as a result further justifying the reasons for …show more content…
For instance Emile Durkheim’s law of penal evolution states punishment is greater when societies are less developed, and when societies do modernise the intensity of punishment decreases (Smith, n.d.). The second feature introduced by Durkheim was that severe punishments for instance death would be replaced by incarceration as as the main source of punishment. Although this idea derived from the 1900’s both notions present a view evident in contemporary society. In a neo-liberal economic environment there is growing emphasis based on managing risks by way of actuarial methods and controlling incapacitation as opposed to physical torture of the individual. During the 1970s there was a new form of control based on surveillance and risk classification , a new penology. (Harcourt, 2010). Certainly the need for physical punishment has declined with the gradual bureaucratization of penal policy. Punishment is not collectively justified by all as there will certainly be disagreements. In particularly in terms of finance if a prisoner comes from a deprived background questions arise who will be the main source of income. Furthermore after the financial crisis 2007 – 2008 , spending was reduced by 25% by the national offender management service consequently increasing the workload of prison officers thus making prisoners become warehoused (Cohen, 2014) . Due to these political changes staff ratio per
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
As well as this , the author illustrates how imprisonment has become society’s general form of punishment and has now become outdated. Jacoby proposes that in order to cut costs and prevent future crime within first time offenders the turn to flogging must be taken. Jacoby’s logic to his argument is that since crime rates are rising, keeping prisoners locked up is expensive, and “the penal system is choked to bursting” (Jacoby 1), prisons should be done away with and flogging should take the reins as the new form of corporal punishment. Bearing in mind the above, Jacoby’s argument on bringing back flogging is unconvincing for the reason that his assumptions are incoherent and flogging itself is inhumane and could prove to be ineffective.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
Criminological theories interpret the competing paradigms of Human Nature, Social Order, Definition of Crime, Extent and Distribution of Crime, Causes of Crime, and Policy, differently. Even though these theories have added to societies understanding of criminal behaviour, all have been unable to explain why punishment or treatment of offenders is unable to prevent deviancy, and thus are ineffective methods of control. The new penology is a contemporary response that favours the management of criminals by predicting future harm on society. However, all criminological theories are linked as they are a product of the historical time and place, and because of their contextual history, they will continue to reappear depending on the current state of the world, and may even be reinvented.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
She makes two points of difference between the views of deterrence and the moral education theory. First, in the moral view of education, the state is concerned to educate its citizens morally so they will not choose the wrong behavior (Hampton, 276). Secondly, the criminal is not to be used for social engineering (Hampton, 276). The second point is important. Deterrence justification of punishment is often used as a warning or an example to others to not do this action. Eventually, that would be a side effect of any public form of punishment which the moral view of education does not rule out. However, deterrence’s means to the end is a social purpose, using the criminal as the
...ns constitute a structural network of supervision, in which individuals may not only be subjected to power, but also play a role in employing and exercising power. Moreover, individuals internalize such and act accordingly. As such, there has been a greater possibility for intervention in individuals’ lives, not only in terms of illegal actions but also crimes against abnormalities. The aim of contemporary discipline is the transformation of individuals into productive forces of society. The basic functioning of society rests on such. Ultimately, the nineteenth century penal regime- not limited to the judicial system- has been largely successful in exerting disciplinary power. Not only has disciplinary power dispersed outside the walls of prison, but moreover, members of society have remained unaware of its presence, as they conform to and participate in it.
The origin of the word prison comes from the Latin word to seize. It is fair to say that the traditionally use of prison correspond well with the origin of the word; as traditionally prison was a place for holding people whilst they were awaiting trail. Now, centuries on and prisons today is used as a very popular, and severe form of punishment offered to those that have been convicted. With the exception however, of the death penalty and corporal punishment that still takes place in some countries. Being that Prison is a very popular form of punishment used in today's society to tackle crime and punish offenders, this essay will then be examining whether prison works, by drawing on relevant sociological factors. Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail?
Sociological analysis of the role of punishment in modern society started with the question of what the role and limits of the power of government should be. Through development, sociology became a 'separate discipline'. (Ibid., p8) Here, Emile Durkheim saw that the only source of moral authority in modern society was the law. In terms of punishment, Durkheim saw the criminal law and the punishment system as a way for society to express its rules and values. This meant that moral boundaries were outlined and sustained through the assertion of penalties for crimes.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.