Durkheim And Punishment

Durkheim states that crime and deviance is inevitable and a certain level is necessary for society to exist. He also claims that it is a positive aspect of society as it shows examples of rights and wrongs within society and by punishing offenders, through ways such as public humiliation and portraying crime as wrong, raises awareness of crime and therefore deters others from committing crime along with creating a collective conscience. He also argues that crime and deviance allows social change to occur which is needed in order for society to remain stable. Durkheim’s

Defining law can be difficult to do since its definition varies among various people. Many people see law as standards for human behavior that reflect the deepest values and morals of the society. Others see law as a game which acts as a set of guidelines for settling disagreements in a nonviolent way. From a sociologist’s perspective law is viewed as a behavioral system with the two aspects of roles/hierarchy and rules/discretion. Not only is law thought of as a behavioral system from a sociologist’s perspective but also as an institution which is a set of directions for doing things. When laws have been disobeyed by a member of society a form of punishment will be determined and it is not always effective. Everyone has their own views on law and punishment which is why I want to look at what theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view as the role and function of law and punishment. Before I can show the weaknesses, similarities and differences between each of their views I will give an overview of their thoughts on the role and function of law and punishment.

All societies have rules and regulations as well as penalties for those who violate them. There are numerous theories about the philosophy behind these laws and punishments, and the reasons we implement them. A short analysis of two of these perspectives can shed light on the differences between the various ideas while illustrating that, in reality, each theory carries some validity.

In this paper I’m going to describe how society’s response to crime impacts public policy, sentencing, practices, and correctional operations. Also an overview of the evolution of society’s views on crime and punishment. Along with need for crime and punishment. Fallowed up by the shift in sentencing laws and impact (prisons, Get Tough On Crime, present day). Fallowed up an emphasis on

Durkheim: Punishment is one of the main aims of the criminal justice system. As crime is an act that is in breach with the collective conscious the punishment of criminals plays a main role in the maintenance of social solidarity. When the state of collective conscience is violated, the response of the society is consisted of 'repressive sanctions ' that do not aim for retribution or deterrence, but aim to prevent the demoralisation of those who are making sacrifices for the interest of society. The punishment of criminals is required to sustain the commitment of citizens to the society (Pratt 1994, pp.2-3). If punishment is not present members of the community may lose their

Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

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.

Every civilized society makes laws that protect its values, and society expects from every single person to obey to these laws. Whenever a person from this society breaks one of those laws, the rulers of the society punish him or her either by putting the person behind bars, whipping him or her, or exiling the person. A great debate has been raging since human society started. Some say that depriving a wrongdoer from his or her freedom is the best way to deter him or her from breaking the law again; some prefer corporal punishment. In this essay "Bring Back Flogging," the author Jeff Jacoby argues effectively that flogging can be a successful alternative to the prison that the U.S. uses for every offensive. The

“Western countries value the individual above society; in Asia, he said, the good of society is deemed more important than individual liberties” (179). In “Times to Assert American Values” and in “Rough Justice” by Alejandro Reyes, different nations punish crimes in America. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has most relevant and sufficient evidence to support it because of the way the author uses important details to support the claim.

With the belief that the former policy of rehabilitation no longer sufficed to meet the needs of the countries growing criminal population, new policies enforced harsher punishments, longer sentencing ranges with the removal of early release privileges, and reinstated the practice of capital punishment (Miethe & Lu, 2005). For professionals in the field, who intend to make strides, which have a positive impact on the future of crime, it is critical for them to understand this history. It is simply not enough to know it. Within the patterns, there is a message and an answer of how to effectively deal with the crisis faced today as a result of the policy changes. The crisis of not only how to handle offenders, but how to appropriately deter

Crime and punishment has always been a part of society. Since the time of Cain and Abel, there has been a vicious cycle of crime, punishment, and vengeance. From damp dungeons to high tech super-max prisons, man’s fascination with punishment knows no bounds. However, history shows that there is a balancing act in the true purpose of prison. Prisons seem to fluctuate between the desire to reform and the desire to punish. Harsh punishments tempt man relax rules and stop any egregious acts against prisoners. Over time, the system moves more towards a reformation. An event will occur, such as a war or economic collapse, which will lead to the governing body to be stricter on crime, and thus shift more towards a punishment attitude. The system moves

The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.

Throughout time, the use of punishment has changed drastically. Not only has the actual infliction of punishment changed, the reasoning behind this punishment has also changed. There have been numerous scholars, educators, and researchers that have presented various theories on the reasoning behind societal punishment. Some of these theories are closely similar, however some are drastically different. It is important to note that these theorists have broad perceptions that can be rooted back to specific time periods throughout history. Societal punishment is defined as, “punishment being a complex social institution, shaped by the ensemble of social and historical forces and having a range of effects that reach well beyond the population of offenders” (Garland, 1991).

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