Under the theory of retribution, it is important to protect the legitimate rights of both society and the offender. Society shows respect for the free will of the wrong doer through punishment. Punishment shows respect for the wrong doer because it allows an offender to pay the debt to society and then return to society theoretically free of guilt. In order to commit a crime you have the ability to choose to do a wrong act through free will. By choosing to commit a bad act the offender receives a deserved punishment which society thinks of as a respect for the offender. In addition, the punishment shows respect for the offender by letting him/her leave after punishment guilt free because he/she received what he/she deserved. Under my argument
Retribution, Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation are four philosophies of punishment. Retribution is the punishment and is simply in proportion to the offenses seriousness. It is the "eye to eye" justice system. Incapacitation prevents further criminal activities and behaviors. It physically restraining the offender from future misconduct. Deterrence prevents through making examples of the offender being punished.
One of the oldest justifications for punishment involves the principles of retribution. Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a cri-me, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes be viewed as a
The death penalty was also used as a mean to deteriorate the rise of murders. A way to scare people from committing the act. This of course is not the case(Depauw). Marshall and Bedau saw the death penalty and retributivism through a similar microscope. Marshall who was against the thought of the death penalty as retribution stated in his dissenting opinion of the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) case: “ The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate decisions…”(ProCon). According to Marshall retribution was a form of revenge which is low as it can get in his opinion. To allow the death penalty to him was to allow revenge to occur and not the laws of the land to prevail. Thurgood Marshall wanted justice to be served in reactions to crime, not revenge or allowing the emotions which was in high demand to conquer the court system. This is what he suggests about the theory of retribution. This in itself is also a form of utilitarian because in order to please others they will give the murderer the death penalty. Utilitarianism is to maximize utility or to maximize happiness. In order to fulfill this, to maximise happiness, it would be at the expense of the convicted.
He explains how this principle guides humanity by asking “how would punishment increase the happiness of society?” Some utilitarians may agree, in part, with Menninger as they view that “ a system of punishment, offers no incentive for the victim to involve himself in the criminal justice process other than to satisfy his feelings of duty or revenge [..]” (Barnett p 285). He discusses how even punishment which seeks to change an offender’s moral outlook or scare him, does nothing to provide them with skills needed to survive in the real world. Barnett offers up a new paradigm of restitution; in the old paradigm two people are seen at the same level, when a criminal commits an act against someone the victim is brought down and then by imprisoning the criminal they are also brought down; whereas in restitution both the victim and the criminal would be brought back
It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime
This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of
Retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are all tactics used by the criminal justice system and its officials, to prevent individuals from committing crimes and combat the behavior of individuals who have committed crimes. Retribution involves an effort to ensure that an offender's punishment is equivalent not only with the crime but also with his or her moral blameworthiness and previous criminal record (Masters). From a Christian point of view, I believe that this is a moral form of punishment. This form of sentencing is fair, because it takes in consideration the person's previous criminal record. If a person makes a wrong choice and he or she is apprehended by a police officer, I don't believe they should be punished
Specifically, one contention against the death penalty is that it doesn't have any recognizable factual impact on the occurrence of homicide, in this manner calling into inquiry its capacity to deter.as for recovery, the staying utilitarian justification that does not make a difference to the death penalty. The retributive justification for discipline is from the earlier, and consequently is unaffected by facts specifically, or involvement in general. Retributive justice is a matter of giving the individuals who disregard human rights law and perpetrate criminal acts against mankind their "retribution. " Punishment is thought to strengthen the standards of global law and to deny the individuals who have damaged those guidelines any unreasonable favorable circumstances. Together with helpful justice, reprisal is concerned with restoring victimized people and guilty parties to their legitimate position.
The overarching theme amongst these three theories is that each attempts to safeguard society. Retribution attempts to achieve this by appealing to the general call of the community as a whole. This is to say that it expresses in the most natural way the community’s condemnation for the crime committed. Cohen outlines that pure retribution, an eye for an eye literally, would not be a just practice due to it neglecting to acknowledge the two important facets of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. If a driver was driving negligently and crashed his vehicle inadvertently killing a pedestrian, it would do no good to have this driver crushed by a vehicle as well. For this would aid in providing minimally more future deterrence than a just sentence; let alone be cruel
Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,
Nonetheless preventing future crimes are not the only purpose for punishment.. Rather one reasoning maybe for past crimes committed. As opposed to utilitarian philosophy retribution focuses on past crimes and that punishment should be equivalent to the offence. This approach has dated back historically to the Hammurabi code one of the earliest writings in history. The concept
The first goal of punishment is retribution. Retribution, also known as deserved punishment, it is when one is punished for committing a crime that harmed other people in some manner (277; ch.9). The purpose of this goal is for the criminal to understand that if you commit a crime, consequences will come with that. Depending on the crime that is committed will decide how serious the punishment is. A lot of factors are considered with retribution during the sentencing process. Factors such as the age of the defendant, their previous offense history, not only that but the victims of the crime. The judge might give the defendant a sentence that will not only punish him for the crime but also make the family feel that the proper sentence was given to the criminal.
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
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
Utilitarians view punishment as a pathway lined with deterrence… one that ultimately leads criminals towards rehabilitation. This is a forward-looking approach, as it focuses on the future of criminal behavior (Hemmens et al., 2013). This perspective concentrates on two separate entities. Those being the person whom is punished, as well as the other members of society. If one were to ask a utilitarian, “Why Punish?” the response would likely be, “We must punish in order to promote good and prevent evil… in the future.” There is little focus on the crime that has already been committed or under what circumstances that it occurred. The concern is with what society should do next in order to prevent it from happening again. Utilitarians believe that if no good consequences result from punishment, then no punishment is justified. One could look at this philosophy of punishment as a doorway of opportunity for criminals, but also as a doorway of fear… one that keeps law-abiding citizens from