Justice And The Principle Of Desert

First to be covered are the five goals of contemporary criminal sentencing. These goals came from the modern thinking that “emphasized the need to limit offenders’ potential for future harm by separating them from society” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 61). They were developed to better an offender and help them to become a better citizen. These five goals are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration (Schmalleger, 2014). Retribution is one of the oldest of the five goals and “is a call for punishment based on a perceived need for vengeance” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 261). This is the basic principal in punishing anyone who has that has done wrong. Parents use this method when grounding a child who has broken curfew and the criminal justice system uses it when handing down a sentence to a person convicted of a 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

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

The second thesis of pure moralistic retributivism, that moral guilt is a sufficient condition for punishment, is far more contentious (Feinber 647). One of the common counterarguments to this point which Feinberg notes is similar to the old addage “two wrongs don’t make a right”. If punishment is justified irrespective of future consequences, and it is assumed that the chosen punishment (i.e. prison time, fine) isn’t itself a good, than how can this negative action be justified if it doesn’t necessarily bring about some goodness? Retributivists often respond by using the example of sadness as a response to suffering. Neither sadness nor suffering are inherently good, but sadness in response to someone else’s suffering is uniquely appropriate (Feinberg 647). In the same way that sadness is the appropriate response to suffering or teachers grade is the appropriate response to a students performance on a test, punishment is the appropriate response to moral guilt on the basis of justice. The concept of “justice”, the assignment of action on the basis of desert alone, will become imporant later.

The death penalty is a serious punishment in the United States with many citizens being split on the idea of whether the practice is moral or not. American sociologist and social critic Ernest Van Den Haag, defends the death penalty by looking at the topic through consequentialist and retributivist perspectives. In this essay, I am going to argue that Ernest van den Haag is accurate in his belief in the morality of the death penalty.

Sayre-McCord’s paper discusses the idea that there is a distinct difference between punishment and legal reparations. He states that punishment is to bring pain to another who has committed an offense. He says this raises moral concerns because that is what defines punishment. However, reparations do not aim to inflict pain but to create a way for the offender to make amends with the person or people he/she has inflicted pain to. The offender that has committed the crime still has rights and they can also deserve a second chance. He says that some crimes are more severe than others where the criminal does not have that right anymore to be punished by making legal reparations, however, most crimes are not like that. Thus, he argues that the best solution for most

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

When jurists begin to become skeptical of how the justice system works, that means there needs to be a change for the better- and quick. “Retributive theories have been characterised as encouraging the motive of blood vengeance” while non-retributive theories, such as restorative justice systems lower the need and want for revenge (Doyle 54). Punishment is needed in any society, but capital punishment and incarceration do not have to be the the answer every time. If a society would open their minds to a new justice system, they would fully accept it if they knew what the current system can do to innocent people. A problem in our society is many people already have the mindset of criminals “associated with punitive, carceral punishment so that other means of securing justice have been almost completely obscure” making it difficult to introduce new ideas into minds (McGlynn 826). For punishment and justice to both have equity in a society, restorative justice could be an answer people are looking

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).

The current political agenda in regards to criminal justice policy in the modern conservative Canadian government is a “tough on crime” approach. This right-wing conservative view on the correctional system is very much similar to that of the United States in how justice should be served. This approach is a very detrimental form of justice, as it only focuses on punishment and has no consideration for utilitarian goals for society to create a greater good for the future. With this right wing conservative approach to corrections, the government appears to have a political agenda to move away from a rehabilitative approach to a more retributivist approach that exemplifies that of just deserts theory. With this type of philosophy, the government ignores the importance of rehabilitation and the impact it has for the future of offenders and society as a whole. This paper will discuss the importance of rehabilitation model in correctional policy and how it can improve the lives of offenders and increase public safety for the long-term. With rehabilitation, it is important to focus on practices and programming that are proven with empirical evidence to actually work and make a difference. It is evident with increasingly high rate of crime, high rates of recidivism, the California three strikes rule, and the “tough on crime” Republican Policy in

Restorative justice is not a complete new phenomenon. Similar principles can be recognised in the Anglo-Saxon law, and even earlier such as Roman Law or the Code of Hammurabi c. 2000 BC (D van Ness). Also, it resembles with system of justice practiced in the Aboriginal and Native American communities, but with time, societies have turned away from this kind of practice, later coming back to it as seen in the last decades. Restorative justice has emerged as an alternative to retributive penal system; it offers a change of perspective to the classic system of justice, thus building on the premise of a participatory approach in resolving conflict and repairing the harm. The new penal philosophy assumes that all parties should be involved in the response to crime, the victim, offender and the community. Under this philosophy criminal liability is based on understanding the harm and the damages that the offender produced.

For the retributivist, the purposes of punishment is simple, a person who commits a crime or rule violation should be punished because they deserve it (Brody & Acker, 2010). This is easy to understand for most people. The average person understands that their actions have consequences, and depending on the action, the consequences can be either positive or negative in nature. Another purpose for punishment for the retributivist is that it restores the social norms and sense of fairness to

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

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?