Persuasive Essay On Punishment

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

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

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

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.

　　Punishment is a necessary evil, it is required to deter criminals from committing crimes and to serve as an example to other potential criminals

Any crime that is committed must have a punishment linked to it to avoid a repeat of the offense. Serious crimes, for example, those that involve a murder obviously need the jail sentence that comes along with them. Nonviolent crimes, such as theft or littering could receive cheap and personal punishments with the implementation of shaming.

Utilitarians view punishment as a pathway lined with deterrence… one that ultimately leads criminals towards rehabilitation. This is a forward-looking approach, as it focuses on the future of criminal behavior (Hemmens et al., 2013). This perspective concentrates on two separate entities. Those being the person whom is punished, as well as the other members of society. If one were to ask a utilitarian, “Why Punish?” the response would likely be, “We must punish in order to promote good and prevent evil… in the future.” There is little focus on the crime that has already been committed or under what circumstances that it occurred. The concern is with what society should do next in order to prevent it from happening again. Utilitarians believe that if no good consequences result from punishment, then no punishment is justified. One could look at this philosophy of punishment as a doorway of opportunity for criminals, but also as a doorway of fear… one that keeps law-abiding citizens from

Pollock (2006) in his book “ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice” stated that “Our society today believed that many people repress their desires to commit offences. We therefore enjoy punishing others who are caught committing these crimes, but the questions then are do punishments help? People are still sentenced to death for the same crime that some have committed and faced death as the consequence for their crime. The view not only lacks support of

Sorry for the late response Dr. Brightman. However, there are several different punishment philosophies that are used throughout the world. One form of punishment is retribution where the offender is required to pay back society for the crime he or she had committed. Another form of punishment is rehabilitation where the offender is put through a program, such as a medical, psychological or educational one, to transform the offender into a law-abiding person. Also used is deterrence where the offender should come to the conclusion that the crime is not worth the risk of the resulting punishment. Also incapacitation is used where the offender is denied the opportunity to commit further crimes, usually through prison or exile. And of course

Sentencing intended to shame offenders for wrongdoing. There are two types of punishments: criminal can go to jail either choose shame-based sentencing. Sometimes, judges allow preference to offenders which is not a good way to punish an individual who attempt a crime. It is very nondescript offering choices to a wrongdoer. An individual should be treated the way that he shouldn’t think again to attempt any crime again. Specially, public shaming based sentences are easy approach for criminals in the view of the fact that if the wrongdoer doesn’t feel humiliated. Moreover, these kinds of criminals don’t feel embracement because they don’t care but public thinks about them. It gives them opportunity to attempt crime again and again. In result, they indeed learn anything from punishment.

The concept of punishment exists in many different forms, each with conflicting views on how to best approach an offence committed by individuals. Two theories stand at the forefront of punishment being that of the Utilitarian, and Retributive theories. Each theory presents its own idea on how punishment ought to be carried out and the core reasoning behind it. The two theories are also debated within our own Canadian legal system which is referred to as: The Criminal Code of Canada, where it details the different principles and procedures when sentencing an individual who has committed a specific offence with guidelines for what sanction should be given. Such principles/procedures reflect various factors within the two theories, and have undergone different fluctuations for which theory has dominated throughout history, but have been influenced more by one theory than from the other. Generally speaking, punishment is invoked upon offenders for the pursuit of the common good of mankind for a society that prospers, and not one that is hindered. Two primary theorists each lead one of the theories of punishment and what its purpose is; one who stands from a Utilitarian view is Jeremy Bentham, and the other being Immanuel Kant who focuses on a more Retributive theory of punishment.

How is it then warranted according to utilitarianism?However, it is warranted according to its ability to promote future benefits to an individual or maximize the happiness of a community. Clearly, crimes tend to produce unhappiness, so in seeking to promote a state of affairs in which the balance of happiness over unhappiness is maximized, a utilitarian will be highly concerned with reducing crime. Traditionally, utilitarians have focused on three ways in which punishment can reduce crime. First, the threat of punishment can deter potential offenders. If an individual is tempted to commit a certain crime, but he knows that it is against the law and a punishment is attached to a conviction for breaking that law, then, generally speaking, that

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

“Americans have always had ambivalent feelings about crime and punishment” (71). Many say our American System of Justice is broken, for they believe the system is looking to just punish those who have done wrong and is not looking to rehabilitate them, especially for juveniles. Then there are some who say, the American System of Justice does not need to change for it already punishes criminals with due process, and rehabilitates them. The American System of Justice should change the way they punish criminals, because those who are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes are taking up space in our prison system, juveniles are being put in solitary confinement and coming out more damaged than they were, and lastly some offenders are serving to long for the crime they committed.

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].