Punishment has been a vital feature of every developed legal system; widespread disagreement exists over the moral principles that can support its imposition. One vital question is why and whether the social institution of punishment is justified. Punishment is a debatable issue because it raises more general issues about the proper standards for assessing social practices. Punishment is considered to be an exclusive province of the law. Parents punish their children and unlike most concepts, punishment has no severe boundaries.
Over the centuries, the most common form of punishments have been torture, mutilation, branding, public humiliation, fines, forfeits of property imprisonment and death. These acts, and various variations on them
…show more content…
It might also be a vital predecessor to rehabilitation in some cases. As evidenced by a high crime rate, punishments by the law does not seem to generate much respect for the law, even in jurisdictions where punishment may actually be certain, harsh and swift. Punishment within the State of Texas falls within the Texas Penal Code (TPC) and its primary goal is to insure public safety through such punishment as may be needed to inhibit likely recurrence of criminal behavior. Texas law presently recognizes three types of misdemeanors and five types of felonies. Every crime within the Texas Penal Code is classified as one of these eight types. The types of felonies in the State of Texas are capital, first, second degree, third degree and state jail. The most obvious and serious offense is capital offenses. In some instances, probation, shock probation and other forms of punishment will also be readily available if needed …show more content…
There has been an incline in the number of aggravated assaults reported over the years, but there does not seem to be a consistent development in the number of felonious assaults prosecuted. This would propose that because of the relationship of the parties or the conditions, under which the assaults happened, several altercations, largely domestic quarrels, considered in reports as aggravated assaults, do not seem to be categorized in the common area of felonious assault. There is a necessity to have a sub classifying of this sort of offense in order to attain a true picture of
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
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
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
Determinate sentencing is becoming more popular in juvenile courts. It is a special statute that allows for the possibility of a juvenile serving a sentence beyond the age of 21. It specifically covers certain violent offenses and drug cases, like murder, capital murder, sexual assault, and indecency with a child. Aggravated controlled substances cases are also covered (TYC website). The alternative to determinate sentencing is blended sentencing, which allows judges to issue delinquent offenders both juvenile and adult dispositions. Depending on the behavior of the delinquent while serving out their juvenile sentence, a fail-safe postadjudication stage occurs to determine whether or not their adult sentence should be suspended or invoked (Belshaw et al, 2011).
Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the judicially ordered execution of a prisoner as a punishment for a serious crime, often called a capital offence or a capital crime. In those jurisdictions that practice capital punishment, its use is usually restricted to a small number of criminal offences, principally, treason and murder, that is, the deliberate premeditated killing of another person. In the early 18th and 19th century the death penalty was inflicted in many ways. Some ways were, crucifixion, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering, impalement, beheading, burning alive, crushing, tearing asunder, stoning and drowning. In the late 19th century the types of punishments were limited and only a few of them remained permissible by law.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
When the our criminal justice system introduced punishments, sanctions for criminal behavior tended to be public events which were designed to shame the person and deter others. These punishments included ducking stool, the pillory, whipping, branding and the stocks. As years progressed, these punishments have slowly started disappear from our penology and capital punishment was introduced. According to Kronenwetter,
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
There are several types of punishment that can be inflicted upon an offender including, fines, community sanctions and imprisonment (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007). Punishment is described as a sanction which inflicts a certain amount of pain and loss on the offender, used for payback and deter (The Judicial Conference of Australia, 2007; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). There are three ways society justifies punishing offenders, through the
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
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.
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
person knew that a particularly painful punishment was in-store for them, they would not commit the crime. This led to the creation of such punishments as beatings, torture, banishment, death, fines, and public humiliation.