Punishment Philosophy: Social Control Functions

There are four main philosophies of punishment, which differ as follows: Retribution – a very antiquated model representing the idea of “an eye for an eye”, in which offenders “get what they deserve” and their penalties fit the crime they have committed. Variations of this model do take into consideration the circumstances and characteristics of the offender in addition to the morality of the crime. This is a very unforgiving form of punishment, and not heavily exercised since it comes from a place of malice and does nothing to improve the lives of the victims, the criminal, or the community as a whole. Incarceration – creating physical restraints that prevent an individual from being able to perform certain actions. Examples of this include

With the belief that the former policy of rehabilitation no longer sufficed to meet the needs of the countries growing criminal population, new policies enforced harsher punishments, longer sentencing ranges with the removal of early release privileges, and reinstated the practice of capital punishment (Miethe & Lu, 2005). For professionals in the field, who intend to make strides, which have a positive impact on the future of crime, it is critical for them to understand this history. It is simply not enough to know it. Within the patterns, there is a message and an answer of how to effectively deal with the crisis faced today as a result of the policy changes. The crisis of not only how to handle offenders, but how to appropriately deter

One aspect of rehabilitation is the use of individualised sentences - penalties aimed at the individual needs of the offender. This is in direct contrast to the concept of set sentences seen in the aim of retribution. One of the criticisms of this approach is, therefore, that it leads to inconsistency in sentencing. Incapacitation means that in some way the offender is made incapable of re-offending.

The Deterrence theory is a key element in the Criminal Justice System. It’s principles about justice appeal to us because it adapts to our ideas of what we identify as fairness. Punish the sinful and the ones who break the law, swiftly, to the extent that pain will dissuade them from committing a crime ever again. Its sole purpose, to instill fear. Fear of breaking the law because of its punishments. We not only use this theory to punish criminals, but it is a basis in which we raise our kids and pets on, that breaking the rules can lead to consequences. The deterrence theory says that people obey the law because they are scared of getting caught and being punished. It is said that people do not commit crimes because they are afraid of getting caught, instead they are being motivated by some other deep need. In my paper, I will address the two theorists who re-conceptualized the deterrence theory, the principles and two types of deterrence as well as give short insight into my own opinions on the deterrence theory.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the concept of ‘just deserts’ where punishment reflects the pain caused and therefore earned by the criminal. To expand based on Hudson (1996) ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ punishment must be proportional to the crime. All forms of custodial

Introduction This essay will explore and evaluate the question “The Primary Purpose of sentencing for criminal offences should be to deter future offending” with reference to primary and secondary sources. Firstly this essay will look at what a sentence is for according to the law and analyse what the disputed words mean and its consequences. Then the different theories of punishment will be explored and will continue to look at how reoffending is prevented during an offenders sentence. Following this - the effectiveness of the prevention is analysed. Finally, prior to the final conclusion, this essay will take a close look at what is in society’s and the offender's best interest based on the research conducted so far earlier in the essay.

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

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

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

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

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.

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).

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