A Problem of Punishment

Once the accused was convicted of his crime, the court moved into the punishment phase. Interestingly enough, the process of deciding punishment was quite a flawed one. The reason for this was that most people's perceptions of criminals in the beginning and mid 1800s was that they were people of the working class who were too lazy to work (Emsley). This led to a bias in which working class people seemed to be receiving harsher punishments than any other class except one (Emsley). Although rare, if a woman was convicted of a crime, they would receive some of the harshest punishments (Victorian Crime) The reason for this was because it was perceived as unladylike as “Not only had they transgressed the law, they transgressed perceptions of womanhood,”

In this essay, I will argue that equal punishment and proportional retribution do not justify the use of the death penalty. First, I will argue that equal punishment is too specific and literal because it stems from the idea that one crime is deserving of that exact crime in the form of a legal punishment. In the case of murder, that belief would condone punishing murder with murder. We can’t justify some killings while condemning others. By giving permission to someone to execute another human being on the grounds of the death penalty, we are allowing him or her to kill another human being for killing. This creates a cycle of murder. Second, I will argue that proportional retribution does not leave the death penalty as the only option for punishment. However, it does give much room for interpretation and is not specific enough regarding alternative punishments. It would allow us to rank crimes according to severity and dole out punishments according to that scale. I will also bring up how retributive justice does not completely delve into the concept of who deserves to deliver the punishment to the murderer. Retributive justice is simply a means of attempting to legally inflict suffering upon another human being for their wrongful actions.

"You were wrong on the second point as well," his father continued. "If the past years have taught me anything it is that putting your life on the line to protect something you care about more than yourself can give more glory than any mindless quest for personal fame. Remember this as well."

    “Why not? He just wants to fight a lot -- he loves his family -- he’s really good!”

The three uncles, Ivan Markovitch, Colonel, and the Official of Treasury, enabled Sasha to become a dynamic character who went from an innocent mindset, to calling himself a criminal. Sasha thought to himself, “No, it doesn’t mean that I am a criminal,” (70). Sasha believes that being in debt is not a crime, that everyone forges notes and that even the Colonel and Ivan were in debt. The Colonel didn’t think it was a crime either but he knew Sasha would do it again and has no faith in Sasha’s reforming. Another thought Sasha has was, “Now I see that I am a criminal; yes, I am a criminal,” (74). The uncles fought for who would win; the Colonel, who thought Sasha should receive his punishment, the Official of Treasury, who just wanted the family

The squad of soldiers looks amongst each other and felt terrible. Maximus was affronted and his son frowned. He sighed and his eyes shimmered. “It’s okay Dad, I’ll take care of Mom.”

It has to be imposed and administered by someone of authority from a legal system against the particular crime committed.

There are five punishment philosophies used in the criminal justice system, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution, and restoration. (Meyer & Grant, 2003) The goal of each philosophy is to prevent criminal offenses from occurring.

“Yeah, I guess you’re right,” Anna agreed, and I could almost hear her sigh as the air escaped her. “At least I still have my freedom and I’m not someone’s little lab rat,” she joked.

In Discipline and Punish, Michele Foucault discusses how institutions, more specifically how prisons, are modeled after the social order. Foucault describes discipline and how it was used to reinforce authority for those in a position of power. Discipline also encourages a certain code to live by;“WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” (George Orwell, 4). The slogan changes truth and allows for the public to confuse their wants with the governments wants. The idea of rebellion is short-lived when one believe the Party’s way of life is the best and only way to live. This acceptable way to live is influenced by whatever agenda an institution of power has. Foucault suggests that discipline

The way of punishing criminals is written in laws and regulations to warn citizens what should not

Deterrence are one of the punishments that is justified for modern society. Deterrence is a punishment that prevent other from doing the same similar crime. This also, helps the public from entering into and criminal activities. Deterrence is one of the major punishments that intimidates the public people by sending a out a message to the public people if you commit no crime you will not suffer as a criminal will suffer. The purpose of general deterrence is to discourage those from committing a crime or any wrongdoing this is taught by setting an example on how the person will suffer the consequences if the crime is committed this is another general way on how to intimidate the public people on how to obey the laws by setting unease example

Deterrent Theory explains that most people would be will be deterred from joining or associating the organized crime, because of the judicial penalties associated with committing a crime. Deterrent Theory has two sub theories the first; General Deterrence Theory which stresses that people will be discouraged from committing crimes, because of the legal consequence associated with committing crimes. Example would be the death penalty, people will not commit severe crimes in they know their penalty might be the state putting you to death. The next theory is the Special Deterrence Theory which would have the penalty for participating in criminal swift and severe. To have a penalty so severe that it out-weighs the any perceived advantage the crime

The sole purpose of the argument Uncle Ivan makes is to guilt the family into letting him go with a warning and paying off the debt to keep the family name out if the papers. He believes that he should receive some slack because he had a hard childhood. He blamed the fact that Sasha lost his parents at a young age. He claimed Sasha “didn’t know any better” because he never received the guidance that a child should receive from his parents.

Family honor, the major theme in A Problem, creates tension between Sasha Uskov, Uncle Ivan Markovitch, and The Colonel. In the beginning of A Problem, Uskov’s uncles are in predicament due to Uskov’s forged promissory note, but towards the end, the uncles reach a decision on whether or not they should send their nephew to trial. Throughout the whole story, one will see the differences in each person's demeanor and will personally develop their own opinions on each character. The Uncle's face many difficulties during their disputes over Sasha Uskov’s future, but eventually they form an agreement.