Retributive Model Of Criminal Justice Essay

There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.

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

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

In order to keep a safe society, it is important to establish a nation with

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

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.

Aquinas mentioned “parental guidance, education, and subtle community pressure have a tendency to keep individuals in line.” Punishment must be just in the sense that it is proportional to the character and level of social dangerousness of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the personal characteristics of the guilty

The expansion of the criminal justice system is a consequence of two decades of "get-tough" policy making. New policies include those targeted at violent and repeat offenders, such as the death penalty and three strikes laws. They also include new mandatory sentences and policing strategies that target nonviolent property and public order offenders, especially drug users ( ). Much of the growth of the prison and jail populations is a result of policies and practices that target these nonviolent offenders. Indeed, the U.S. now arrests and incarcerates a much larger proportion of those accused of property, public order, or drug offenses than do other industrialized countries, and it does so for significantly longer periods of time.

When a crime is committed against another person, then justice must be served to those who committed the crime. In some cases the crimes involve sexual attacks on grown adults while some offenses are against minors. In these examples the underling connection is the committed crimes of sexual abuse or sexual assault on adults and minors. When these crimes are brought before the justice system they are processed and the convicted are given a sentence to carry out but sometimes those sentences may not provide efficient time to produce the required outcome of correcting the individual or may be determined that there is no fixing the convicted disorder. The United States Supreme Court decision to hold a mentally ill, sexually dangerous

This paper will describe my understanding of the text and of the lectures provided in the class. Unlike most classes, where I understood only my view of the text, this class was geared so each student would understand each other’s view. 3 An organization is a collective that has some boundary and internal structure that engages in activities related to some complex set of goals. Members of organizations attempt to meet their psychological, ego and emotional needs within the organization. Criminal justice organizations are particularly unique compared to other public or private sector organizations because of the governmental granted authority. Management within these organizations can be defined as the process by

The retributive rationales present a substantive justice issue because it is based upon what constrains and directs human behavior on many different prospective levels. There can never be a balance between the rights of victims and offenders in today’s society. The law must be fair and just. The Utilitarian rationales are not sufficient because their criteria of reflective equilibrium is lacking in the principles of justice (Amatrudo, 2016). The perpetrator must commit the crime intentionally and not as an accident. Regardless of the effects, criminals are to be sent to prison. The utilitarian justification for punishment relates to what is best for society in general and over a long period of time. For instance, when an individual is sent

It is easy to see that punishment may deter the violator from committing similar acts in the future. If punishment can serve as a general deterrent for the society, it should have more of a deterrent effect on the person suffering from it. This goes along with the next utilitarian philosophy of punishment, which is incapacitation (Brody & Acker, 2010). When a violator is incapacitated, or incarcerated, they are keep away from the rest of the community, and usually in an environment that is very uncomfortable. This also supports the philosophies of general and individual deterrence, in that once members of a society know that they will be incapacitated in an undesirable place, they will not want to risk their freedom by violating the law. As for the individual deterrent, once a person has been incapacitated, then released, their experience should prevent them from committing future violations. This previous experience with incapacitation also supports the next utilitarian philosophy for punishment, which is reform (Brody & Acker, 2010). It is hoped that by making the punishment, and incapacitation so uncomfortable, that the violators will reform their criminal ways, and become viable members of the community. This brings us to the last utilitarian philosophy for punishment, which is vengeance (Brody & Acker, 2010). This philosophy is geared more towards the victims, who suffered

The utilitarian theory of punishment advocates that punishment for a crime is done to discourage crimes from being committed in the future. These theories aim to justify the use for punishment (Carlsmith, 2006, Page 1 and 2). These theories of punishment have empirical evidence behind them to suggest they have the potential to be the best path of punishment to lower crime rates overall; yet both are indeterminate about what should be punished and to what extent it should be punished with (Bilz, 2004, Page 38); neither side can agree whether the severity or certainty of punishment is more effective in deterring crime and if deterrence is in fact the aim of punishment

In classical theory, the main objective of study is the offence and the nature of the offender is a rational, free-willed, calculating and normal individual (Aker, 2012). However, it became apparent that some were more motivated to commit crime than others, regardless of deterrence. Therefore, the classical doctrine cannot account for re-offending. Based on empirical research done on convicted offenders, the notion of deterrence was rarely given thought of (Burke, 2013). Initially, most offenders give a lot of thought to the notion of punishment; however, in the process of committing the offence, offenders give little consideration to deterrence and consequences. As a result, this defies whether the purpose of deterrence is, in fact, achieving what it is meant to (Burke, 2013). The model is idealistic, that individuals could be controlled by the threat of punishment- by the likelihood of arrest, prosecution and

Before going into college to study Criminal Justice, I had the same opinion as most people had when it came to criminals or deviant behavior. The classic “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime,” phrase was mentioned many times throughout my youth, whether it be for something as simple as an explanation for grounding me or to explain why doing the wrong things will give you a one-way ticket to prison. My life was surrounded by crime. I managed to separate myself from the “wrong-doers” with the help of my mother, but I still spent most of my life around law enforcement. To me, police officers were always the ones doing everything right. In my mind, if someone died at the hands of a police officer it was probably their fault, if they were beaten they deserved it, the police were only doing what they had to do to make our communities a safer place.