Implementing An Effective Punishment For An Offender

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

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.

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

* The extent to which the law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society

Victims can pursue one or even a combination of three distinct goals. The first is too see to it that hard-core offenders who act as predators are punished, The second is to use the justice process as leverage to compel lawbreakers to undergo rehabilitative treatment. The third possible aim is to get the court to order convicts to make restitution for any expenses arising from injuries and losses. Punishment is what comes to most people’s minds first, when considering what justice entails. Throughout history, people have always punished one another. However, they may disagree about their reasons for subjecting a wrongdoer to

What is the expectation when someone commits a crime? Many would say that offenders require strict punishment, as well as harsh sentencing without the benefit of rehabilitation. Two conflicting views are examined, they are from Eugene H. Methvin, who is a supporter of mandatory sentencing as well as ‘three strikes’ sentencing that can result in life sentences being mandatory for repeat offenders even if they are non-violent crimes. On the other hand, is David Shichor, who supports sentencing that is efficient and fair, objecting punishments that only attend retribution, especially since they do not contribute to the lessening of crime commission. Reviewed are two works, that of Eugene Methvin is his paper Mugged by Reality and David

All crimes are not conducted with the exact process and mind behind it, which is why it is essential for a variety of sentencing options presented to court to maintain a just criminal system. The extensive array of sentencing options provides judicial benefits as they ease the selection process as he/she are not limited to one particular sentence but can impose a suitable punishment corresponding to the nature of the crime. When courts have these other options available, they can tailor a cost-effective sentence that suits the crime and offender. Incarceration (imprisonment) is a famously common sentence among the system however this traditional approach can be replaced by many alternatives that could be selected when imposing a sentence.

Victims also emphasised how they don’t always want their offender to be punished harshly, but instead want the Criminal Justice system to use more therapeutic justice practices to prevent further crimes happening in the future. This essay will argue that the process leading to an outcome is more important than the outcome itself to victims of crime. In saying this, it needs to be addressed that this is not the case for every victim. Victims have diverse needs and expectations of their Criminal justice process and many still do want punitive punishment as the main outcome. It needs to be noted that the views expressed in this essay are not the views of all victims of crime and it can never be assumed that all individual victims will want the same outcome or have the same definition of Justice (Williams,

It also shows that the public receive a view the court aspects of the sentencing, where the offender may be perceived to have received a lenient sentence when convicted. This leads to the public not knowing all the facts of the case and perceiving that ‘criminals’ are getting off lightly.

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

By living in a society an individual gives up some liberties for the well being of the entire population. This gives the government the right, and duty to create laws and punishment, however they must be fair and reasonable. The problem with our criminal justice system is that it corrupt, inconsistent, and lacks proper laws and punishments. In my most famous publication, On Crimes and Punishments, I discuss the importance of reform in the criminal justice system. Punishments for crimes should be used to deter others from committing more crimes; our government is more likely to use them as retribution. Most of the laws and punishments are leftover from the barbaric past of our country; the best example is capital punishment. There is no need to kill somebody for a crime they have already committed. It may seem impossible to reform the justice system, but there are several things that we can do. Capital punishment and the use of torture to extract a confession should be abolished. Suspected criminals must be given rights to prevent any acts of injustice from being committed. Reforms like these will work because human nature allows them

It is through this that philosophers, government and prison officials have arrived at the five traditional goals of punishment which replicates elements of criminal punishment. They are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration and incapacitation. Retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence are however the three most frequently used in today’s modern society, as they are the main justifications for punishment.

The many different philosophies behind the punishment of a criminal include just about every moral justification that crosses a human being’s mind. The ideology behind philosophies of punishment in the criminal justice system has mainly derived from the globally understood “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” from the Old Testament and the cliché “The punishment must fit the crime” concerning retributive punishment. Both of these statements involve retributive punishment. This is because most of the criminal justice systems throughout the world have been shaped by this philosophy for centuries. However, there are many more philosophies that produce respectable arguments when concerning the punishment of a criminal. The philosophies covered in this paper will be the Retributive Justification, the Utilitarian Justification, and the Deterrence method of justification.

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

Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law