The Criminal Justice System 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.

Bentham, J. (1789). Punishment and deterrence. In A. von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds., 1998), Principled sentencing: readings on theory and policy (2nd ed.). 53-57. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

The problems surrounding the criminal justice system range from a variety of issues in different areas of the system. But i believe they are all connected back to a societal problem, that has to do with a outdated philosophical notion “redemptive violence”. I will break down each aspect, which i find most troubling. I will cover problems between policing and peacekeeping, corrections options, and the issue of redemptive violence which is a major issue in the philosophy of the criminal justice system. These issues represent problems that have always been key topics when discussing problems of ethics in criminal justice. Policing and Peacekeeping are roles that have long been debated in usefulness to stopping crime. Corrections comes with the reality of incarceration having little chance of success but more likely a higher rate of recidivism. I well also touch on briefly the issues of attorney discretion. While the issue of redemptive violence ties them all in, As i well show this philosophy is the “root of all evil” in the issues facing the criminal justice system.

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

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

When it comes to the criminal justice system, there is often a gray area between what is considered fair and what is just, with these concepts many times having a connection. Furthermore, justice and fairness are subjective and many times individuals’ concept of what is fair or just differ. Throughout a recent court case involving a Stanford University swimmer being charged with rape, that issue became well evident. This case involved a Stanford student, Brock Turner, being charged with sexually assaulting an unconscious woman on the school’s campus behind a dumpster. The victim who has chosen to remain unidentified read an empowering letter at Brock Turner’s sentencing hearing, addressing him and the affect his actions have made. Another letter was made public during this case, which was written by the attacker’s father and directed towards the judge during this hearing; Which made an attempt to justify Brock’s actions. These letters, media coverage of Brock, and decisions made by the judge throughout this court process exemplified the dilemma associated with deciphering between what is just and what one believes to be fair when it comes to a crime, and how what may appear to be fair to one person may not be fair to another.

What is the first thing that one associate when one hear the word “punishment”? Some might wince when it reminds them of their parents grounding them, running ten laps in a football field, and getting their electronic devices confiscated. The common adjective to describe all these punishment experiences is “unpleasant”; it is also the idea of punishment that the society feels familiar. In addition, according to the psychological definition of “punishment,” it is an event to reduce the undesirable behaviors of someone by removing pleasant things or issuing unwanted things. Standing in front of one’s house and holding a board that says, “I am lowering my children’s living standards by not supporting them” is unpleasant. Getting one’s photo with the conspicuous caption that says “I bought marijuana with my child beside me” in the advertisement is unpleasant (Kahan, ). However, according to Tangney, these kinds of punishment make people feel “small, worthless and powerless”, but it is only when the sentence evoke extreme shame in an offender. Like Mark Twain had said, “Too much of anything is bad.” Therefore, it is the legislators’ and judges’ duty to equate the intensity of an offender’s crime with the severity of the public shaming sentence since they are finding an alternative of incarceration to punish non-violent offenders without its

The prevalence of crime is a substantial part of society. As a result, the development of punishment has been essential in contributing to social order. Despite extensive research conducted into the ideals surrounding crime and punishment, this research does not act as a solely relied upon source of information for society.

Today, the contemporary ‘penal harm’ society is rather utilitarian and ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ appears to be the leading principle of demeanor (Castellano, 1998). The criminal justice system is known to deliver justice by apprehending, prosecuting and punishing wrongdoers and the key rationale behind the extended employment of the criminal sanction is the common conviction that exercising frequent and severe levels of punishment represses and curbs crime through deterrence and incapacitation (Tonry, 2000:345).

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

“Classical Criminology was developed in the eighteenth century in opposition to the use of extreme and arbitrary punishments. Classical Criminology advocated a rational approach that punishment ought to be imposed only to the extent necessary to ensure a deterrent.” (Rowe, 2012: 191)

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

Crimes are committed when one surpasses the existing laws and offends the state and an individual. Utilitarians hold that punishing offenders deter the possible occurrence of subsequent cases of crimes. According to the utilitarian arguments, it is expected that one should do to others what they would also like to be done to them (Mill, 117). This further expounds the reason as to why some wrongs such as battery cannot be tolerated. In justifying the effectiveness of punishment, criminologists agree that punishment as a sanction for criminals causes an unpleasant feeling to the victims, should be for an offence and to an offender, is not a natural consequence for an action but the work of agencies and should only be imposed by an authority whose laws have been

Criminal punishments have been a fragment of society for centuries, either to discipline individuals or overpower political opposition. Different eras over time established numerous forms of punishments for crimes. There is no morality or exceptional guarantee that punishment is a substantial process of humane penalty besides political officials that believe that it is feasible. In my opinion, punishment is not a proper method of crime control, however, some sanctions should be attainable in current day living. Courtroom officials portray punishments as desirable methods of crime control to distort community citizens’ perception, so they may trust that crimes are decreasing. Criminal punishments are solely based on rehabilitation, criminal analysis, and deterrence. Numerous theories of punishment have become inhumane because sometimes individuals have been incarcerated for years for crimes that weren’t even harsh.