Moral And Political Arguments For Punishment In The Criminal Justice System

Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly

Criminology is a field that has been researched prolong. Most of the information explaining crime and delinquency is based on facts about crime (Vold, Bernard, & Daly 2002, p.1). The aim of this paper is to describe the theories of crime and punishment according to the positivists Emile Durkheim and Cesare Lombroso, and the classical criminologist Marcese de Beccaria. The theories were developed as a response to the industrialisation and the modernisation of the societies in the 18th and 19th centuries and were aiming to create a rational society and re-establish social solidarity (Vold et al 2002, p.101). The criminological perspectives of crime and punishment will be discussed in a form of dialogue between the three theorists exploring

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.

Sentencing criminals in court is not the easiest thing to for anyone involved, it’s usually a lengthy process that must go through examining evidence, interviewing witnesses and of course listening to the defense. When an offender has been found guilty, a judge must decide what their retribution will be, usually referring to set guidelines. These guidelines help judges decide what punishment would be best based on the offense, criminal history, whether a weapon was used, and many other facts. These judges follow what is known as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Champion 111).

the five sentencing philosophies are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restoration. Number one, Retribution. This is the act of taking revenge on criminal perpetrator. If an offender breaks the law he or she should be punished based on perceived need of vengeance. Two, Retribution. This corresponds to the principle model of sentencing of "just desert." It punishes based on the severity of the crime committed. The third philosophy is Incapacitation. The major goal is to provide protection for innocent members of society from offenders who might harm them. Incapacitation guarantees that offenders will not be a further threat to societies safety. Deterrence overall goal is to provide crime prevention and punishing a person

The pilgrims came to this country in hopes of practicing their religion in peace and not persecuted by an abusive government. In the early colonial settlement of the United States the main focus was on rehabilitation. Settling a new land takes a lot of resources along with people to put those resources to use. So they were more concerned with solving the problem an individual might have compared to killing them. Also the communities were small, leading to people knowing almost everyone around them and their opinion about others, it was unlikely they would kill someone everyone else knew they hated leading to you quick capture and punishment. However over time more people meant more conflict and this lead for a need for punishments to stop people from acting as they saw fit and follow the standard society demanded.

In the debate over capital punishment, the opponents argue that capital punishment should not be practiced because it has a civilizing effect and practicing capital punishment has do deterrent effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporters argue that capital punishment should not be abolished because it is just retribution and has a deterrent effect. In this paper, I will argue that capital punishment should not be practiced.

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).

In this paper, I will explain the utilitarian and retributivist theories of punishment and what each theory claim is the reason to punish criminals and how does each theory set the punishment for crimes. I will also discuss the merits and problems for each theory and which on would be a better approach to the issue of punishment. The utilitarian theory claim to the punishment of criminals is based solely on applying the punishment to fit the crime they have committed with the hope that the criminal can be reformed and return to society and become a productive member of society. One way this can be achieved is by education, most criminals often do not have the opportunities to pursue higher education so they resort to criminal activities to survive.

In society there many things that are debated among the people based on their beliefs, morals, and values. For this paper chose the death penalty because it is one of the highly debated topics in not only today’s society but also in the past. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, it used as a procedure of retaliation against those who commit violent crimes such as murder and other capital crimes. There are many forms of this punishment, for instance, the electric chair, lethal injections, and the firing squad. There are many feelings and arguments in relation to capital punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is moral because they deserve it and it provides protection to the society. However, in this paper I will argue that capital punishment is totally immoral because it is not fair, is it unnecessary, and unethical.

There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how individuals are being punished or if the punishment is too harsh, not severe enough or if the individual even needs punishment because what they may need is psychiatric help.

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.

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

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.

This essay will consider what legal punishment is; it will draw a distinction between the two main categories.[3] It will focus on utilitarianism