Is Punishment Justified

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

“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.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

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.

The concept of morality and moral “rules and laws” has as its corollary, the concept of “rule-breaking” or acting immorally. A common response to immoral behavior is punishments, which leads me to ask the question: how is punishment justified? In his article “The Classic Debate”, American legal philosopher Joel Feinberg lays out the main points of discourse between the two major theories of justified punishment, which I will deconstruct. Feinberg asserts that there are two main theories used to justify punishment: Retributivism and Utilitarianism. These two theories supposedly oppose each other such that they are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (Feinberg). The latter of these theories, Utilitarianism, is the main concern of this

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

Our current ideology on crime and justice dates back to thousands of years back. This paper will compare and contrast our system and sense of crime and justice with the society Malinowski describes in “The Law in Breach and the Restoration of Order”. In our modern era, it is acceptable to think Hammurabi code is ideal to pursue crime and justice or Cesare Beccaria’s approach towards the pursue of justice is best for the society. To each to its own when it comes to this based on their own values. But regardless of how extreme, or mild our societies thought can be to sought after justice for crimes, the ultimate purpose of all of it to teach a lesson to the individual who committed the crime and to others.

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

Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice.

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

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.

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?

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

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].