If you're reading this, you're probably a pretty decent person; caring, willing to help others, and unselfish. Maybe you loaned money to a family member, a friend going through a crisis, or bless your heart, someone you barely knew? Well, you aren't alone! These are four mistakes I will not be making again when it comes to loaning money to others. The Perpetual Screw-up; We all know the perpetual screw up. It's a friend you went to college with, a family member who can't seem to keep a job, or even a grown child who looks to you for constant financial bailout. I loaned $2,500 dollars to an old friend when she was having money problems. I love her, I knew she really needed it, and she promised to pay it back within a year. She moved from …show more content…
Thus, the loanshark is assumed to act out of free will and self-interest when he violates the social contract. Punishment tactics is guided by the denunciation model, which is a hybrid of utilitarianism and retribution. Utilitarian punishments befitting the crime are meted out as deterrents to would-be criminals who will destroy the peace of society. Where current measures prove ineffective as deterrents, stronger measures are proposed. Under the recently enhanced Moneylenders Act, there will be mandatory caning for first-time harassers in addition to existing penalty of a fine up to $40,000 and a jail term not exceeding three years (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg). Mandatory forms of punishment extends from retributive theory, and in this case, views caning as a punishment for loansharks that abuse their free will and consciously inflict harm on others. The police have also invoked the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to detain perpetrators in instances where witnesses are hesitant to stand court for fear of reprisal(http://statutes.agc.gov.sg). Critics may question the morality behind the …show more content…
This has led to reformative training instead of the initial four-year imprisonment for 16-year-old loanshark runner, Nur Azilah Ithnin, who was driven to the crime in late 2009 due to desperation arising from poverty and a dysfunctional family. One can argue that impoverished youths might view reformative training as a 'softer' form of punishment and thus question its deterrence value. One must, however, bear in mind that it is as important for the young offender, a victim of circumstances, to reintegrate into society without potential recidivism as it is important to deter crime. Advocates of Right Realism may dismiss socio-economic circumstances as causes of criminality. However, as long as hosts of people are living upon small salaries bordering competency, a slight disturbance in the normal course of affairs, such as prolonged illness necessitating hospital and medical care, the necessity for making small loans even for the purpose of meeting household expenses temporarily, will exist. It is all very well for those who are firmly situated from the financial point of view to say that every person must live within his
In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from
I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and
“Finally!” Today I went to a school assembly about bullying. The principal said, “If anyone is caught bullying in school, you will be suspended for a week.” I told the principal that we need to make harsher punishments if anyone is bullying. Here are the reasons why there should be harsher punishments for bullying.
Incarceration is thought of as a positive form of punishment, and negative form of punishment. The opinion varies with the type of person, and their experience from jail if they have gone. Most inmates while in prison will tell you it is a horrible place that should be gone. That would allow criminals to be free and that would let them cause harm to others or other illegal activities. Incarceration was not designed to be a paradise, it is a detention center for the bad, and meant for them to be punished. Without jails the world would be filled with even more evil, and would leave people in more danger than they already are.
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.
People have a tendency of ascribing external stimuli as reasons for actions and behaviour of man. If a person becomes a criminal, we look for reasons in his background and social setting. However, it is not always necessary that a poor person will take to crime to alleviate his misery.
The four goals of punishment in the American criminal justice system are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The purpose of the four goals of punishment is to ensure that the sentence the criminal is receiving is reasonable and just. It is difficult to satisfy all of the components to the highest degree for all criminals. All of the goals serve a different purpose and are significant in their own way, but when combined together they create a very complex sentencing policy for criminals.
The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person
This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was time to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000)].
Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely
What a great discussion post. According to Utilitarianism the good of the majority is more important and for sure the boy should have a harsher punishment. Even though the Affluenza issue came up later, the good (joy) of the affected (families and injured) is more important. Since the parents of the young men already knew of this sickness, they should have taken care of the boy limiting him from driving and some stewardships. I do not think the state should have paid his rehabilitation once his parents were wealthy and already knew about his sickness. Of course, the punishment of the young boy would bring relief to the affected families; thus, the boy should be punished, according to utilitarianism, because it would relief the pain of the families.
The utilitarian theory of punishment is another approach to the criminal justice system. Richard B. Brandt believes that this type of punishment is frequently found in Great Britain and the United States. He believes that utilitarian’s differ in their thoughts as to what is the “ideal” system would be but the punishment extended should be fair and that the threat of punishment may be more important than the punishment itself. Brandt discusses the difference in the prosecution and defense used to obtain maximum utility and how the punishment should be implemented and how to mitigate the punishment.
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
To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to