Philosophy of Punishment: Deterrence General and Specific

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

I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and

The offender must have some type of punishment for the action he or she chose. Deterrence is a type of sentencing that prevent future actions of crimes. There is a general deterrence and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is punishment that prevents the criminal to commit additional crimes by enforcing fear. "Back in the day", depending on the crime, the criminals would get parts of their body removed. For example, rapist were castrated. General deterrence is when examples are shown to prevent someone, that is contemplating on committing crimes, to change their minds. Sometime's when a person is put in jail it does not change their criminal minds.

Retribution, Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation are four philosophies of punishment. Retribution is the punishment and is simply in proportion to the offenses seriousness. It is the "eye to eye" justice system. Incapacitation prevents further criminal activities and behaviors. It physically restraining the offender from future misconduct. Deterrence prevents through making examples of the offender being punished.

The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of

In my opinion deterrence is key, I know that on my first paper of the five goals of sentencing I said that retribution is the best option but I think after more research and hearing things in class, I know believe that deterrence works in the world today. I know if someone in my community was given a punishment for a crime that would deter me from committing the same crime. Sometimes deterrence and retribution can go hand and hand in the case of seeing someone get the death penalty can deter you from committing a crime. Which is why I believe the primary purpose of punishment is

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 next goal of punishment is deterrence. The purpose of deterrence is to convince criminals and society to not commit future crimes (277; ch.9). Deterrence has two separate subcategories which are

There are three principles that the deterrence theory follows. The first principle is severe punishment. Its basis is any criminal penalty must be severe enough to outweigh the benefits to be obtained by crime. Our perceptions about the severity of punishment is, the more people suffer, and the greater the severity of that punishment, than the criminal has ‘paid’ for their crime. For example, capital punishment. There are only two options you can receive as

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

Your statement, “Having experience in both adult and juvenile probation, I honestly have to say that sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentencing is not effective deterring crime. In my opinion, your statement is correct and accurate pertaining to offenders that re-offend. In addition, crime is deterred long enough until the sentenced term is satisfied. Furthermore, depending on the support system one may or may not have might determine the factors in committing future crimes. There are cases where individuals that come from stable backgrounds and household are responsible for committing crimes. Although these are important factors to consider, it’s safe to say that most individuals from stable backgrounds and homes commit crimes for attention.

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

Utilitarianism is an approach to punishment, founded by Jeremy Bentham and it’s the idea that the morality of an individual’s (good) actions is benefited by a great number, that it affects the overall happiness. There are four philosophies that are operated for prison systems and these are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

At its start, punishment was used as a way to protect the social order, and as Newman (2008) describes, “the simplest form of social order is direct obedience of a group of equals to its sole leader” (p 24). According to Newman (2008) Obedience model of punishment began in the family institution. As opposed to a reciprocal model of punishment designed to right the balance of the natural order through vengeance, total power was given to the father by the paterfamilias doctrine allowing for the killing, torture, and sale of lower status household members to maintain control of their slaves, the social integrity of the family, and economic security of the household (Newman, 2008). In the realm of the school, children retained this lower status

The justification of punishment in today’s society as stated by Bartollas & Seigel indicates that since “it is applied by the duly authorized government body on somebody who has violated the laws of society” (2013) the issuance is therefore just. The concept of punishing law violators in return will benefit the law abiding populace is derived from Bartollas & Siegel’s statement that “Punishing law violators provides beneficial consequences” (2013). Likewise, the assertion that the application and threat of punishment serve as a cost effective “means to an end” by deterring criminal behavior and thus protecting society can be gathered from this concept.