Retributive Justice: Rewards Vs. Punishment

Restitution as a means of rehabilitating offenders tries to give the offenders a better understanding of what they have done, and the effects they have caused due to their actions. Punishing them with jail time does not seem to be enough to get offenders to understand the magnitude of their crime. If they have the ability to pay back the victims it will give them a sense of accomplishment and will allow them to feel as if they are doing good and correcting their mistakes. Restitution as a means of reconciling offender and their victims give the ideology that if they fully paid the person they hurt that they can both put their anger behind them and move on from what had happened.

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

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

Restorative justice ways are a very controversial topic. Many people have different opinions about whether restorative justice is a good idea or not. Restorative prisons are a part of restorative justice and they can positively impact many people who were involved in some way of the crime or not. One way of restorative prisons are very effective and beneficial is because it gives the perpetrator more of an option on rebuilding their life after. It also helps the perpetrator see the good in themselves as well as others see the good in this perpetrator. Restorative prisons don’t just give the perpetrator freedom right away they have to go through a process to prove that they want to be a better person so they are not just receiving freedom

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

Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large. This criminal justice system that restores promotes accountability between parties involved and builds the community through the provision of assistance and respects to victims and anyone involved in the community because crime disrupts lives.

Restorative justice is a comparative newcomer to the world of criminal justice; however restorative justice has been around, ‘officially’- by means of legislation for 14 years, and unofficially (in innovative practice), for longer. The knowledge and skills associated with restorative justice have slowly but surely migrated to other services, such as education, with startling results (Daniels, 2013). With the criminal justice system being so unfair and bias for years maybe even centuries, restorative justice has been bought up as a useful tool for victims and offenders. Plenty of scholarly articles, journals, books, and research have been written about Restorative Justice.

Since ancient times, restorative and retributive practices were used. Retributive justice is oriented toward punishing the offender for breaking laws and rules. Prevention of future crimes or rehabilitation is not considered when punishing the offender. In restorative justice, the focus is mainly on the victim. Harm is amended and the offender is rehabilitated. Both of these practices are used today around the world.

While this idea seems great, it is not exactly going to be effective enough for those who commit capital offenses such as mass murder. I have always believed that instead of just throwing prisoners in jail and leaving them there, they should develop rehabilitation programs for every single inmate that they participate on a weekly basis. By the time they have served their prison sentence, or at least 1/3rd then they will have had a great deal of time to be taught to not recommit crimes and how to reenter society. This will reduce the recidivism rates, greatly. I don’t believe that we should take away sentencing for crimes, but rather including rehabilitation with the sentencing. That would be my reply to a conservative that would call for restorative justice.

Martin Wright explains that restorative justice involves a fundamental change in the response a society has towards individuals who harm one another. Wright elaborates that this terminology shifts the meaning of crime, stressing the fact that people are harmed, rather than a crime was broken (Wright 216). This highlights the ultimate source of restorative justice, and its strong relationship with

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

Crime and punishment has made some tremendous changes since the early modern time of the 1600s. A period where a wife, could be found guilty of being a scold, in other words, nagging her husband. Punishments for this crime consist of the wife being duck into the river or pond using a ducking stool that is said to still exist in Canterbury in Kent. The Scold’s Bridle was another form of punishment us for a nagging wife, she was made to wear this bridle as a form of embarrassment for her actions against her husband. In early modern times the homeless made people uncomfortable and scared because of the change in the land that cause them to move from their traditional rural livelihood and became known as vagabonds. If the homeless

A jury convicted Justin Wolfe of premeditated killing for hire, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The jury further ruled that Wolfe fit the vague standards of future vileness and dangerousness necessary for capital punishment. While Wolfe made multiple admissions during his testimony, he did not admit to conspiracy to commit murder or murder for hire. The presence of two offenders in murder for hire, resulting in shared culpability, allowed Owen Barber, the triggerman, to testify against Wolfe, providing the prosecution with its only key piece of evidence. The dubious nature of Barber’s testimony calls into question the viability of the prosecution’s case, along with the prosecution withholding exculpatory information. Additionally, the Virginia State Bar disbarred Wolfe’s attorney for multiple counts of misconduct, calling into question the strength of Wolfe’s defense. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Justin Wolfe presents Wolfe as both the offender and the victim, and questions the sanctity of the death penalty and the underlying cause of a crime. There is no single model of justice that can adequately handle the complexities of the Commonwealth v. Wolfe, where there exists no imbalance of power between criminal justice officials, victims and offenders and imprisonment provides offenders with skills likely to reduce recidivism.

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?