Probably, the abolition supporters think that it is more costly. But, devising a more professional strategy that will facilitate wrong-doers` rehabilitation both physically and psychologically is the issue that needs to be negotiated. Equally important, the abolition supporters may claim that there are increasing number of juvenile delinquents and they need to be transferred to adult courts because of necessity. Actually, courts are the rear-end of the crime process. Finding reasons, contextual factors, and risk factors that is conducive to crime are more important, and if we address this roots problems, these numbers will dwindle.
According to John R. Schafer, he argues that “strictly enforced three strikes laws are an effective crime control policy and may break the cycle of crime for youthful offender” (Schafer, 1999). However on the other hand Attorney Michael Vitiello states that “the three strikes laws have not delivered on their promises to reduce serious crime. Moreover, the costs of such laws appear to outweigh their benefits” (Vitiello, 2002). First the deterrent effect of the three strikes laws is that it keeps repeat offenders in prison for a long time. After a person’s second conviction if they do not refrain from criminal activity the person will receive their third strike.
Retribution connects to incarceration, where the offender chose to commit the crime so they should pay their time for committing the crime. Depending on the crime that the offender committed, the type of sanction that would be used for retribution may vary. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpuio stated that he, “believes in the retributive goal of corrections and notes strong public support for getting tough on crime and criminals” (Sieter, 2014, p. 26). The above evidence shows that if crime is punished by incarceration and the fear of incarceration is in the criminal offenders mind, then they may not pursue in criminal activity. As Joe Arpuio states “getting tough on crime,” the tougher retributive punishments are, may again deter crime.
The crime control model believes that the arresting of people in the criminal justice system has a negative effect and slows down the process of the criminal justice system. One more difference is the due process model believes in the rights of the defendants and proving their guilt is essential to keep the government in control. The crime control model believes that the rights of the defendant cost too much and the criminal justice system should be spending more money on recruiting police officers and building prisons. Although both models have some differences, they also have some similarities. The due process model and the crime control model both believe that the defense counsel’s job is to act as an advocate within the criminal justice system.
Rehabilitation may be the premise of the criminal justice system, but the reality tells another story. Recidivism Recidivism has become a major issue in society. The only logical option to deter crime is to lock people up, putting them in prison. The longer the sentence, the safer society becomes, based on this logic. Of course, when the justice system is supposed to rehabilitate individuals rather than developing them into career criminals, this is a flawed system.
State and Federal objectives of punishment Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while incapacitating and, rehabilitating offenders. For punishment to be successful it must be so unpleasant that it will hopefully deter inmates from reverting to such life and also deter others from taking part in such activities. In response to the growing public concern over criminality, politicians have adopted a Tough on Crime approach when dealing with law breakers, and have pushed for new legislation to keep criminal offenders from further harming or terrorizing society.
In Jeff Jacoby’s essay Bring Flogging Back, he discusses whether flogging is the more humane punishment compared to prison. Jacoby uses clear and compelling evidence to describe why prisons are a terrible punishment, but he lacks detail and information on why flogging is better. In the essay he explains how crime has gotten out of hand over the past few decades, which has lead to the government building more prisons to lock up more criminals. His effort to prove that current criminal punishment is not perfect or even effective is nicely done, but he struggled with discussing ways that flogging could lower the crime rates and provide a safer environment for America. Jacoby uses many claims about how crime in the United States has grown and the how faulty America’s justice system currently is.
Punishment in our society is an attempt to discourage people from doing unlawful criminal acts. For our society, our criminal justice system and punishes means justice. Once an individual has done the time for their criminal act in our justice system, the offender has paid their debt to our society and justice has been done. Because our justice system defines justice the way it does, the victims of the crimes often want to see the harshest punishment possible for the individuals that did the crime. Society tells the victims that the punishment of the offender will bring justice, but often leaves the victim feeling unsatisfied and not sure how to move on after getting what they wanted to happen.
Every civilized society makes laws that protect its values, and the society expects every single citizen to obey these laws. Whenever a citizen of a certain society breaks one of these laws, the rulers of the society dish out punishments they dim fit for the kind of crime committed. With this kind of justice system in place, criminals are either locked up in prison cells, whipped, or exiled from the society. In the essay, “Bring Back Flogging”, columnist Jeff Jacoby argues that flogging is much more superior to imprisonment and should be brought back as a method of punishing crime offenders like the Puritans did in the past. He is convinced that the shame associated with flogging would prevent offenders from going into crime professionally.
Historically the Children Act 1989’ regarded children’s welfare as being paramount. Nowadays, individuals tend to see the welfare of children as a primary concern. The sentencing council, (2008) discuss the issues of giving highly punitive sentences to young people. They say that mental health is prevalent amongst young people in the criminal justice system, suggesting that a more nurturing approach could be helpful in tackling the issue of crime and deviance. A welfare perspective could be argued to be more effective as it recognises that young people should be given a second chance.