Theories of Punishment

631 Words2 Pages

The criminal justice system is the system of law enforcement that takes an extensive position in prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses. It is essential to know the many theories of punishment that the justice system has created in their minds that eventually became a part of society. This paper will analyze the theoretical explanations of punishment and their effect on society by generating an opinion of how each type of punishment deters crime the best and if punishment provides any benefit to the offenders and to society.
Retribution is something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for something he or she has done. Those who side with retribution usually do not consider trying to improve a criminal in any way and attempting to make him or her an asset to society. Usually, their motto would be, “An eye for an eye.” An example of this would be a person raping a person’s daughter, so someone who knew they daughter reacting and going after the person or maybe even their daughter and raping them. Retribution is usually not carried out by the criminal justice system but by vengeance and society taking the law into their own hands. Several people do not believe that retribution is the most effective way to go about punishing criminals due to the fact that it sends out the wrong message to those around us.
The use of punishment as a threat to prevent people from committing crimes is knows as deterrence. Deterrence also has a role to make the person or persons feel afraid or anxious. It rests on the theory that it is feasible to deter the rest of society from lousy conduct by arresting and chastising those as the example to others, even if th...

... middle of paper ...

...ture of the offense. Punishment is justified by the risk individuals pose to society.
Every single one of these theories have their faults. The issue with all of these theories is that each one doesn’t fit every criminal out there; everybody is different. There are some criminals who wouldn’t mind another twenty years in prison, some who want out as soon as possible and will do anything to do it, and some who wished they never did the crime. So, how exactly is society supposed to judge them?

Works Cited

http://marisluste.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/incapacitation-theory.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(legal) http://www.ask.com/question/example-of-general-deterrence http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/retribution-and-overcriminalization http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-98929.html
http://www.studymode.com/Crime-And-Punishment-813487.html

Show More
Related

  • Varying Rationales and Ethical Frameworks for Punishment

    2126 Words  | 5 Pages

    What would the criminal justice system be without punishment? Perhaps, the criminal justice system would not serve a function or cease to exist. Punishment is one of the main facets of the criminal justice system. It holds such significance that it even reflects the beliefs and values of a particular society. Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) once said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” (Pollock, 2010: 315). Punishment has been around since the beginning of civilization. With its rich history, the concept of punishment has been analyzed by some of the most renowned theorists, some of which include Jeremy Bentham, Cesare Beccaria, Adolphe Quetelet and André-Michel Guerry (Pollock, 2010: 318). Once found guilty of an offense the type of punishment must be determined. There are many different rationales used to answer why it is necessary to inflict punishment. Rationales for punishment include retribution, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. To better understand these rationales ethical systems such as utilitarianism, ethical formalism and ethics of care can be used. The general public should be knowledgeable about punishment, even more so should professionals in the criminal justice field because they are directly linked to it in some way.

    Read More

  • How Does The Fear Of Crime Influence Criminal Justice

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Deterrence Theorists and Capital Punishment

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    Raymond T. Bye describes the basis for the theory of deterrence in the idea that the privilege to live and therefore an individual’s life is the most sacred and only thing any human really owns. Because of this, threatening an individual with the consequence of death will cause them to decide not to engage in the criminal activity. There is a spectrum of consequences that individuals mentally process for...

    Read More

  • Corrections: The Four Goals For The Prevention Of Crime

    122 Words  | 1 Pages

    Retribution, is one of the four goals within corrections. It’s the belief that those who committed should have to pay for what they did. Such as when someone commits a crime, they should have to pay a certain way. Either those ways being fines, or serving time in jail or prison. Or it could be something along the lines of community service for a certain amount of hours.

    Read More

  • Retributive Theory Of Punishment Essay

    696 Words  | 2 Pages

    The theory of punishment as a whole is worth investigating as well. My largest argument against the theory of punishment is that it is not a fair or just operation. The concept of punishment is a way to intentionally harm people. This is not a just way of making a case right, or making a victim heal from any crime they may have been a part of. The victim is not compensated for the damage or harm caused to them. Punishment, in the retributive theory will really only do good in that it deters people from committing crime because they are scared of the punishment- but this simply does not work as well as it should. The restitution theory does not address the issue of who is entitled to cause harm to others, or punish said criminals.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: Penatives Of The Death Penalty

    992 Words  | 2 Pages

    Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more

    Read More

  • Incarceration versus Rehabilitation: Curbing Recidivism

    785 Words  | 2 Pages

    Societies have since time immemorial had to deal with wayward individuals who committed various offenses that harms the well-being of other members of the society. Within each community, there are good people and there are bad people. To promote positive overall wellbeing of the community, it is important that individuals of that particular community have systems and mechanisms in place to help deal with those who offend others and deter them from committing further offenses. Traditionally, the most common way to deal with such offenders and deter any more crime was punishment. Depending with the type of crime that an individual has committed, appropriate punishment would be meted out to them so as to make them regret their actions, deter them from committing such crimes again, and set an example to other members of the community who may think of involving themselves

    Read More

  • Is Parole Ineffective of Effective in Curbing Recidivism?

    2253 Words  | 5 Pages

    All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty

    853 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...

    Read More

  • Herbert Morris's Theory Of Punishment

    1614 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Retribution

    537 Words  | 2 Pages

    Retribution – is a correctional aim which is to hold a person who has committed a crime accountable for committing a crime against another or society in the form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) What we look at in retribution is when someone is punished there is legitimacy in the punishment of a particular crime that was committed. Some of the pros of retribution are retribution can make a person or society feel safer or a feeling of justice being served when a person is punished for the crime they committed. The con of retribution is during court proceedings the prosecution and the offender’s lawyer may come to a plea agreement which could give the offender a lesser sentence than what he or she would have gotten originally. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013)

    Read More

  • Five Sentencing Goals

    710 Words  | 2 Pages

    The goal of Retribution would remind me that I need to punish the offender according to the pain/ harm that was committed to others (victim). The payback consequence and the pain given to the offender is expressed in the length of time he/she is incarcerated. However, the negative part of retribution is it doesn't attempt to

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Classical School Of Criminology

    1440 Words  | 3 Pages

    The groundwork of how the criminal justice system is laid today, despite some major tweaks and changes along the way, still has remnants of the classical school of criminology. With people having free will, an attraction to crime, the ability to possibly lower crime through fear of reprimand or punishment, and knowing that crime must be severe, certain, and swift, the components of the classical school of criminology are very helpful and powerful (Siegel, 2011, p. 9, para. 1). Specific deterrence is a great tool to use to show the criminal just how severe a punishment can be (Siegel, 2011, p. 100, para. 1). General deterrence, on the other hand, shows all criminals a perception of the real threat of punishment (Siegel, 2011, p. 95, para. 10). Criminals attract criminals, and criminals also have access to media outlets, so they have ample opportunities to see the results and hear about the results of being caught for crimes. However, the legal and judicial systems have a moral responsibility to make sure criminals see that crimes get harsh punishments. All of society, a person’s parents or guardians, and the media have to make sure the punishments for particular crimes are well known to avoid their respective audiences from making the same mistakes. The rational choice theory is an excellent method to use, provided ample material is given to a criminal to see that crime simply does not

    Read More

  • The Purpose of Criminal Law

    855 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Punishment

    859 Words  | 2 Pages

    Critically evaluating the accuracy of this statement 'Punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The fundamental principle of desert in punishing convicted persons is that the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offender's criminal conduct. The focus of the commensurate deserts principle is on the gravity of past conduct, not on the possibility of impending behaviour this retrospective orientation distinguishes desert from the crime-control goals of dissuasion, incapacitation, and therapy. The criterion for judging if a penalty is deserved is whether it honestly reflects the severity of the criminal conduct of which the offender has been convicted, rather than its success in preventing impending crimes by the defendant or other potential offenders. The rationale of the principle may be stated as follows. Punishment involves blame; it is a defining characteristic of punishment that is not merely unpleasant (so are many other kinds of state intervention) but also characterizes the person punished as an offender who is being censured or reproved for his or her criminal act. The sternness of the punishment brings the amount of blame: the sterner the punishment, the greater the implicit censure. The amount of punishment therefore should comport, as a matter of justice, with the degree of blameworthiness of the offender's criminal conduct. The principle of commensurate deserts addresses the question of al- location of punishments that is, how much to punish convicted offenders. This allocation question is distinct from the issue of the general justification of punishment-namely, why the legal organisation of punishment should exist at all. In arguing that the commensu...

    Read More

More about Theories of Punishment

Open Document