Feinburg (1994, cited in: Easton, 2012: 4) says that punishment is “a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment”. When punishing an offender there are two key principles that determine the kind of punishment. These are the Retributivism response and the Reductivist response. The first principle, Retributivism, focuses on punishing the offence using 'denunciation' where they denounce the crime that has been committed so society knows they have done wrong, and it also uses 'just deserts' where the equity 'eye for an eye' is the main idea. The second principle, Reductivism, believes that deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation is the best strategy to use to punish, its aim is to reduce crime and use punishment to serve a purpose. This essay will look closer and outline the purpose of just deserts and deterrence as punishment in society, although these punishments are used widely across most crimes, this essay will look specifically at prolific offenders. Emile Durkheims theory of collective consciousness is that everybody in society has common beliefs and sentiments, and to think or act differently would be a moral outrage against that. So crime is inevitable, there will always be people who think differently to others in an organic solidarity society. In the 17th and 18th century, the purpose of punishment in society was to seek revenge and retribution for the crimes, however, in the 18th century classicist criminology thinking emerged in response to the cruel punishments that were handed out. The two key leaders of this was Beccaria and Bentham, both of which were utilitarian, so believed the reductivist approach to punishment would be the most effective. Beccaria argued that the purpose of punishment was to make society associate a strong link between the crime and punishment so they knew the consequences of their actions (Easten, S. and Piper, C,. 2012), he argued this could be done by delivering the punishment as quickly as possible and believed that the certainty of punishment in society would be the most effective way of deterrence (Newburn, T. 2007). The other key leader Bentham, argued that the purpose of punishment should be to show people that the cost of the crime outweighs the gains of it, he was a supporter of the use of prisons and thought that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and have predictable, certain consequences to deter people from future offences. One
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
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
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
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.
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
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.
Although some believe that the “just desert” method will restore balance to the community, it has been found to be ineffective when properly dealing with the elimination of crime in the future (Wenzel and Theilmann, 2006). Instead the “just desert” approach creates a antagonistic relationship between the community, victims, and offenders. However by taking a restorative justice approach to crime, offenders have the opportunity to engage in community service and give back as well as attend educational programs that educate them on victim awareness (Wenzel and Theilmann, 2006). This approach was also found to restore values in offenders and bring about more understanding between the offender, their victim(s), and communities (Wenzel and Theilmann, 2006). Karen Pryor, a well known Behavior Psychologist who focused much of her studies on training and the avoidance of punishment practices, said it best when she stated that punishment is the first thought when behavior goes wrong and that it is humanity’s favorite method of dealing with undesired behaviors (Pryor, 1996). However, this should not be the case, especially with our juveniles whether delinquent or not because harsh punishment practices does not teach anything, and is merely a temporary solution to the real problem (Pryor,
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
...apabilities to deal with this which is not the case so much nowadays as Tony Marshall (1999) argues. There are criticisms over procedures, loss of rights such as an independent and impartial forum as well as the principle of proportionality in sentencing. There is also an unrealistic expectation that restorative justice can produce major changes in deviant behaviour, as there is not enough evidence to support this claim (Cunneen, 2007). Levrant et al (1999) on the other hand suggests that restorative justice still remains unproven in its’ effectiveness to stop reoffending and argues that its appeal lies in its apparent morality and humanistic sentiments rather than its empirical effectiveness. He continues to argue that it allows people to feel better within themselves through having the moral high ground rather than focusing on providing justice to the offender.
The ‘just desserts’ theory of sentencing is a form of Retributivism, which is a late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century theory of punishment based on lex talionis or the law of vengeance, derived from the works of a German theorist Immanuel Kant. Retributivism contends that when an individual commits a crime, his punishment should be the equivalent of the crime committed. Kant argued that humans are free and rational agents who recognise that any wrong committed would have to be met with a deserving and equal punishment by the state. He believed that a states failure to punish this wrong would be a corroboration of sorts in the wrongdoing. Furthermore, he held that punishment must only be inflicted upon those who have committed a crime and not for any other purpose. In keeping with this theory of moral reasoning, ‘just deserts’ is a modern form of retributivism, more concerned with seeking proportionality rather than exacting revenge. Supporters of this version argue that offenders should be punished, but only because they deserve it. An interpretation centred more on the ce...
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.
It is morally right as the when the person is convicted, they must get the punishment. It is opinion of the public to the bad guy without concerning with the outcome of the punishment. This theory also is regarded as the offenders deserve to get the punishment not as to prevent from future wrongdoing . This theory also as the metaphorical to scared the society for not doing the same offense. Richard Swinbume, in his recommendation of retributive punishment, indicated that the state only has authority to impose punishment for criminal harm where it serves as a proxy for the individual harmed.' This is ‘‘one of the oldest and most basic justifications for
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 welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
Throughout the decades of correction, there has been an argument between rehabilitation and retribution. Although people think of prison as a reformatory, a place where criminals who have committed crimes pay their debt to society and learn their lessons, in order to return to society. People think of prison as a place of punishment, where the loss of freedom, limited privileges and rights are undertaken to enforce a punishment on criminals and to protect society. The question is which of these beliefs, retribution or rehabilitation, is more effective or important.
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.