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 …show more content…
Boonin argues that the state could ensure the minimum conditions necessary for just mutual relations between its citizens by relying on a practice of pure restitution instead of punishment. In this paper, I will argue that Boonin’s argument fails because he has a different mind set which a lot of people do not agree with. In other words, I think about punishment as a huge different way. I do not think he expresses punishment in a good way. In the book, The Problem of Punishment, by Boonin in the first chapter he talks about how to explain why the institutions are morally permitted intentionally to harm people who violates the laws. He mentioned a solution to the problem with a ‘test’. One is called under the foundational test, which a solution on only morally acceptable principles. Under the entailment
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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...
...sent in the justice system. Through comparison, Miakaelsen proves that healing must be a sector of concentration in justice, if society aims to retrograde the complications created by a crime. As a result of punishment being a fixation in justice, legislation is directly contributing to detriment of our society. By remaining focused on punishment, our governance is failing to erase the taint crime inflicts upon our nescient society. As citizens, we must manifest together to demonstrate our support for justice which focuses on restoration, rather than retribution. Otherwise, with solely punitive measures in place, this cycle of lawlessness will remain incessant. Is this reality of harsh discipline still acceptable if there is no obvious benefit from these methods?
Arguably, there are many reasons for punishment, including: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, restoration, and rehabilitation. The main aim of criminal law is to punish anybody who does wrong to the society; however, it is clear that there are different goals and forms of punishment as listen above. Notably, these differences exist because of the severity of the crime and its punishment. A murderer can be sentenced to die but a shoplifter cannot face the same sentence. The first type of punishment, retribution, punishes the crime doer because the system believes that it is right and fair. Therefore, it looks back at the crime and matches it with the best possible punishment (Schmalleger, 2013). The second type, incapacitation, is forward
Forfeiture-based retributivism is a solution to justifying punishment. Forfeiture-based retributivism claims that it is morally permissible to punish an individual who has committed an offence because they have violated another individual’s right to something and there for forfeit the same right or one similar (Boonin p.105). This essay will cover some of the objections that David Boonin presents for forfeiture-based retributivism and why I think his objections do not work
The only crime in the United States that is legally punishable by death is criminal homicide. While the definition of murder has undergone rigorous analysis, legal scholars often ignore the theoretical justification for capital punishment. As a result of the Supreme Court ruling in 1976 that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, there is little debate on the justificatory aspect of the death penalty in law. The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the moral permissibility of capital punishment for murder based on ethical principals of punishment by death. To do this, it is important to take into account some alternate moral theories as potential sources for theoretical justification and to consider the observations of many renowned philosophers including Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill and Aristotle.
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
Prison and the penalty have become the essence of punishment because it makes the person fear in committing the same crime repeatedly. For example, prisoners would engage in activities like work in order for them to learn and train them. Therefore, a crime and penalty must be accepted in order for the penalties to be heavier than crimes. Also, there must be a rule that focuses on the intensity of the effect on who committed the crime by using the common truth. According to Foucault (1995), “When the prisoner is isolated it creates a terrible shock. When the prisoner is isolated, they are able to reflect and protect themselves from their bad behaviors and negativity” (p.122). If, essential punishment for prisoners should be based on learning to become a better human with
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
The problem of the correct legal response to crime has produced passionate discussions within the study of criminology. The classical theories of justice present consistent legal action of all offenders who have committed identical crime while emphasising the notion of punishment as deterrence. Opposing this is the theory of the positivist school, which denies punishment as a preventative measure and instead promotes the rehabilitation of offenders through the recognition that each offender is an individual in their own right. In this essay, we will first understand the principles of proportionality and consistency and the importance of these principles in sentencing and then explore the effectiveness of both fixed punishment and open ended
Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.
The Law today is a summary of various principles from around the world from the past and the present. Early practises of law were the foundation of the law that we know and abide by today. These practises were referred to as the Classical school. Over time however, different criminologist have altered and greatly improved the early, incomplete ideas and made them more complete and practical to more modern times. This newer version is referred to as the Positivist school. This rapid change from the classical to the positivist perspective was due to the change and growth of civilization. Even though one perspective came from another, they are still different in many ways and it is evident when relating them to section 462.37, Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime, and section 810, Sureties to keep the Peace. The Classical School of criminology’s time of dominance was between 1700 and 1800. Its conception of deviance was that deviance was a violation of the social contract. Classical theorists believed that all individuals were rational actors and they were able to act upon their own free will. A person chose to commit crimes because of greed and because they were evil. The primary instrument that could be used in regards to the classical school to control crime was to create “criminal sanctions that instil fear of punishment in those contemplating criminal acts” (Gabor 154). Classical school theorists believed the best defence was a good offence and therefore they wanted to instil so much fear into people about what would happen to them if they were to commit a crime that even those who were only thinking of committing a crime were impacted greatly. The classical school individuals operated entirely on free will and it was their ...
In “The Problem of Punishment,” Boonin (2008) defines legal punishment, or punishment, as “authorized reprobative retributive intentional harm” (p. 23). Punishment must include intentional harm, which intentionally makes the offender “worse off than she otherwise would be” (Boonin, 2008, p. 7). Punishment must be only imposed by an authorized agent of the state, within their power, in order to be legal. It must be reprobative and retributive, because it is necessary to express disapproval toward the illegal offense while only harming the person or people who committed it. It does not qualify as punishment if the punishment inflicted upon an offender is missing any one of these five elements. In this book, Boonin argues that there is no good
Capital punishment hardly plays any role in reforming or rather reducing murders and other violent cases in the modern world. In fact, most countries in the world have gone ahead and abolished death sentences. This decision to abolish capital punishment may have come due to the issues surrounding this system of criminal punishment, with the morality of the punishment and the methods used to execute it being the main problem. This has led to the query whether capital punishment has any purpose in today’s society.