Let the Punishment Fit the Crime in the State of California

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

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

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

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

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

THE NEED FOR EXTREME CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IN CALIFORNIA ORIENTATION FACTORS: I.     Basic Introduction and description - Introduce basic sides of Criminal Law and Elaborate II.     General History and Development      - Discuss the history and modifications of Reform Laws in California III.     Main Problems and Concern Stimulants      - Point out real life statistics and point out incidents IV.     Conclusion      - Point out the need for an extreme reform and what can be done SENTENCE OUTLINE I. An analysis of Department of Corrections data by the Center

Premise 4: We have no right to risk (endanger) lives of the innocent people.Utiliarianists believe that prisoners could escape. Thus the death penalty is the only truly effective way ofachieving societal protection against the continuing threat posed by some convicted murderers. No matterWHAT the crime, WE as Americans have no right to kill another human being. We are not an eye for aneye country.Conclusion: Therefore, it is our moral obligation to retain (keep) the death penalty.Utilitarianists would say the fundamental justification for retaining the death penalty, lies in the fact thatthe death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent. The death penalty costs multitudes more than what itcosts to keep someone in prison. If we were to work on strengthening our prisons security rather thankilling these convicts we wouldn’t have to worry about escape, the safety of guards, or killing potentiallyinnocent

The California’s Three Strikes Law was an act that came into place under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law was enacted to help deal with violent repeat offenders. The essence of three strikes law was to require a defendant convicted of any new felony, suffered prior convictions of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison. In this paper I will discuss the three strikes laws adding to prison overcrowding, does it targets non-violent offenders, and are these laws a deterrent. America’s incarceration addiction grew during the late 1980s and early 1990s, as state and local government passed the “three strikes” law called for mandatory sentencing of repeat offenders. California's "three strikes and you're

What are we mad about electricity rates, gasoline prices, traffic congestion and crowded schools? We're missing the point here. What were missing here is some good, old and honest anger about an issue that has been a concern for decades – California's Death Penalty. The Death Penalty has long been a problem in California from costs, deterrence, overcrowded prisons, execution of the innocent and so on. Then if were having all these problems why should we continue using this system?

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 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.

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

This concept is utilized in all of the diverse levels of the criminal justice system in which it prospers in both courtrooms and policing as well as the essential participants involved. When a particular person or a group of people such as a jury in a courtroom or an individual police officer exercises this decision making concept, he or she tends to observe the act with little consideration rather than the outcome and how it can impact society. If a rapist were being tried in a courtroom with a utilitarian jury and the jury had to make a decision on the punishment, more than likely the punishment would be severe because the jury would feel that if they were to let the convicted actor go, he or she might commit the crime once more. But if the

The criminal justice system exemplifies how society uses punishment to discourage negative and immoral behaviors. As liberal establishments move towards enhancing freedom and justice, many are beginning to have second thoughts regarding their view on the death penalty. However, the percentage of Americans that still favors the death penalty believe it is absolutely necessary because it deters instances of murder, plus, it offers the only just punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. The Retentionists rely on two main theories as justification for the concurrence of capital punishment: The Retributivism Theory and the Utilitarianism Theory. The theory of Retributivism, also known, as the doctrine of “just desert” is the belief