The Different Aims of Sentencing Essay

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

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

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

The general deterrence theory and specific deterrence theory are two explanations or rationales as to why the policy of life imprisonment was introduced [5]. Firstly, life imprisonment may have been introduced to show a demonstration effect. This is based on the idea that when we see others who have been caught and punished, it is assumed that we will not do the same thing they have done. It is based on the idea that someone who commits an offense sets an example for the rest of society. Another explanation for the introduction of the policy may be based around specific deterrence. This is the idea that the actual person experiencing punishment and retribution will encourage them to make a different choice if released [4]. Offenders will think twice before doing it again, however there are limitations to this theory. For example, research shows that when punished, sometimes offenders get attention and punishment gives offenders recognition. Finally, it is the notion of the severity of the punishment. For example, as a punishment becomes more severe, the less likely people are to engage in it. Therefore, severe punishments such as life sentences may result in less people to engage in severe crimes. In culmination, it is the laws surrounding the Criminal Code of Canada that govern these severe crimes by

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

A common justification for punishment is that it deters people from committing crime by using the example of those who are punished to reinforce fear of punishment (Walen, 2016, p.741). Mandatory sentences for habitual offenders would be beneficial when applied appropriately; mandatory sentences will keep repeat offenders with menacing and violent backgrounds off the street making our communities safer while promoting the interest of public safety and protecting the rights of individuals. This law should only apply to habitual offenders who are a threat to society who do not get a mental hold of the rehabilitation process, comprehend it fully or make use of it. From a deontological perspective, the punishment must fit the crime (Williams &

Rehabilitation is another utilitarian rationale for punishment. The goal of rehabilitation is to prevent future crime by providing offenders with the resources and abilities to succeed within the confines of the law. Rehabilitative requirements for criminal offenders usually include treatment for handicaps such as mental illness, chemical dependency, and chronic violent behavior. Rehabilitation also includes the use of public educational programs that offer the offenders the knowledge and skills needed to feel confident enough get out and compete in the job

Punishment versus Rehabilitation, there has been many debates on the effectiveness of punishment compared to the effectiveness of rehabilitation of convicted offenders in prison and under community supervision. Punishment is defined as a penalty that is imposed on an individual for doing something wrong. The term rehabilitation is defined as a way to help somebody to return to good health or a normal life by providing training or therapy (StudyMode). If an individual commits a crime serious enough to warrant incarceration, then the individual is sent to prison as a form of punishment. While incarcerated

An eye for an eye is no more proper agenda for the civilized society. As well as this, I do not believe in the ‘curing’ effect of the rehabilitation philosophy; neither am I in for the philosophy of incapacitation that emphasizes on physical restraining of offenders against victimizing others or isolating criminals from the rest of society. All these concepts tackle the outcomes of the offence as part of imprisonment, whereas the deterrence paradigm tries to prevent them. Thus, every society and legal system should strategically emphasize on the causes of a crime rather than tackle with its consequences (Chambliss & Seidman,

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.

As stated above, as a criminal justice major, academically, I have gained the ultimate development and background of the Criminal Justice System and its practices from my Intro to Criminal Justice and Criminal Law class; how they implement the laws and apply them to crimes, offenses, and offenders. The whole concept of the criminal justice system is to uphold social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or execute sanctions for people who violate the law. Throughout my Criminal Justice courses, I found certain concepts interesting; the concepts that I found most important surrounding the Criminal Justice System were Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Punishment. These three major factors are substantially the main functions and focus in regards to offenders. Deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment are elements that help offenders readapt back into society so they can reestablish all of the mechanisms they need to be successful. They prevent future crime, implement reconstruction, and issue consequences. They are significant and crucial factors that the criminal justice system used to promote safety, change, and justice. Deterrence focuses on future behavior by both individuals and society. As a result of offenders receiving punishment, people will deter or discourage from committing crimes in the future. The hedonistic calculus argued that harsher punishment for committing a crime will cause pain rather than pleasure and crime would be prevented (Seiter, 2017). It is basically the concept of making the punishment outweigh the reward or pleasure. I learned that they are two kinds of deterrence which are specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence is preventing an individual offender from repeating the same crime over in the future while general deterrence focuses on society as a whole and prevent them from committing a crime in the future (Seiter, 2017). The criminal justice system also believes that it is important to focus on the offender's attitude and behavior and tries to improve them for the can reenter into society as law-abiding citizens (Seiter, 2016). Because of my Corrections class, I learned that correctional facilities have all sort of programs the deal with drug/alcohol abuse, mental

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].