The Justification Of Punishment Today 's Society

Many people believe that all convicted lawbreakers should be sent to prison. Others, however, feel that there are better ways in dealing with petty offenders than to automatically sentence them to prison. Nowadays, the number of crimes being committed is becoming higher and higher every day, and it has become a serious problem. The individuals that chose to disobey the law need to take responsibility for their actions because they “did the crime” therefore, they need to “do the time”. This essay will argue that all law violators should be sentenced to prison, to secure the safety of our nation’s people.

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

Punishment refers to the deliberate or intentional infliction of pain and suffering on an individual for breaching a particular law or code of conduct established in a given society. The idea of punishment has been in existence for a long stretch of time in history with philosophers weighing upon the necessity or otherwise of punishment. Inasmuch as a considerable number of philosophers agree that

Shichor and Methvin each demonstrates ideologies that persuade humanity to be concerned about crime and penal plans. Other than writing about criminals and penal methods, no other similarity exists. Shichor’s work is rational and thought provoking, while on the other hand, Methvin seemed to be a radical zealot. Furthermore, Eugene Methvin’s paper is so punitive it pugnaciously gave the impression to be almost satirical and rather reminiscence of Johnathon Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Those with troubled teens or single unwed mothers would find Methvin’s work to be menacing and bullying. Contrary to Methvin, Shichor’s work is so calm, that the importance of his work will be easily overlooked because it does not heighten fear. There can be no doubt that Shichor’s primary motivation is for sentencing to be fair and efficient, and individualized. Conversely, when Methvin offered research from Sarnoff A. Mednick that interrelated the importance of the timing of the punishment that to be effective it must swiftly follow a crime to reduce repeat offenses. Additionally, Methvin refutes his manifesto since it made no difference if the penalty was a fine or incarceration (Hickey 2013). Forcing the examination of Methvin’s intensification of punishment, why justify the need for life sentences for repeat offenders, who are non-violent or perhaps only drug crimes when other forms of punishment are as effective? Considering that the only conclusion marketed by Methvin is to target those who are likely to commit a crime, thereby ensuring unequal scrutiny applies more to one group than another. If tax evasion, fraud, or bribery were the primary purpose of law enforcement, would Methvin be more compassionate? Predominantly Methvin focused on groups dissimilar from his social class since Methvin has made no stand against white collar crime in his stance against

This point discusses what motivates the criminal behavior. This is where one develops their idea on whether the law is “favorable” or “unfavorable” for them.

In order for us to understand the moral theories surrounding the justification of punishment we must first accept that punishment exists to benefit the society we live in. Punishment as a whole should protect a community by sanctioning crimes to a significant degree whilst preventing them from reoccurring. If a punishment does not protect a community it is believed that that punishment is unjust and will be unfair to both the criminal and the community members. I believe that a retributivist style of punishment only focuses on the treatment of the singular rather than that of the masses. It is for this reason that I will argue why a consequentialist or utilitarian theory best allows us to understand the justification of punishment.

Under the utilitarian model, distributive justice has three possible objectives when handing out punishment. The three outcomes of justice are incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Newmark, 2017b). Incapacitation seeks to prevent future crime by isolating the offender(s) to protect other members in society (Newmark, 2017b). Blanco Garcia would receive a life sentence under this model so that he will not harm anyone else in the future. The punishment does not necessarily have to fit the crime under this model, as long as future crime is prevented (Newmark, 2017b). Regardless of the seriousness of Blanco Garcia’s crime, to prevent him from recidivating, society should separate him from society altogether. This is because it is assumed that “offenders are determined to commit crimes; it is in their nature” (Newmark,

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).

Garland, D. (2015). Sociological perspective of punishment. [online] http://www.umass.edu/legal/Benavides/Fall2005/397G/Readings%20Legal%20397%20G/8%20David%20Garland.pdf. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/legal/Benavides/Fall2005/397G/Readings%20Legal%20397%20G/8%20David%20Garland.pdf [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

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

The great philosopher Aristotle once said, ”At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” Ever since the beginning of mankind, countless of different communities have implemented their own versions of justice to their lifestyles. From the first groups of hunter gatherers enforcing certain rules to stop members of their tribe from thieving to people in the Twenty-first Century debating about the political correctness of the death penalty, justice has always had several essential components that allow it to function in any society. In short, justice is the retribution or the mere idea of a punishment that follows a harmful or negative act that compromises the stability

The motivation behind why retributive justice is viewed as beneficial amongst the existence of criminals in society is argued by (Durmbi.A.M, P, 2007, P.149) who makes a relevant suggestion towards Kant, Hegel’s retributive view stating that retribution has various “positive utilisation effect in deterring violence by discoursing vigilantism amongst the general public” furthermore, the public is able to “see a wrongdoer punished in a manner that accords with perceptions of that individuals just deserts can augment the value of the legal system in the eyes of that same public.” Additionally, Incapacitation theory also supports the retributive philosophers, by arguing that the removal of an offender from society can prevent “future harm by the

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the

In this paper I will defend both the proponents and principles of the utilitarian theory of punishment, namely addressing the utilitarian approach juxtaposed with the retributive. Before beginning to make claims in any direction, a brief and to-date synopsis of the utilitarian fundamentals regarding punishment will be necessary. From there, I will present the utilitarian theories of punishment as not only the most useful for a society, but also the best representation of criminal law being carried out justly. Following this assertion I will refute objections made by retributivists, and in doing so present a discovered common ground between the retributory criteria for just punishment and the utilitarian theories. This will not serve to say I believe in impure retributivism over the utilitarian theories, but rather will act as testament to the practicality of the utilitarian approach. Finally, I will propose the most ethical response to criminality is found from the utilitarian fundamentals of societal well-being, mentioning specifically the vindictive theories of punishment as meeting the utilitarian criteria. To the utilitarian, punishment is not an end in itself for the actions of a wrongdoer. Utilitarians and I believe punishment should serve as a larger means to an end that will benefit the future while righting the criminal actions of the past by employing deterrence, rehabilitation, and the disablement of the unjust human in the perpetual attempt to increase overall

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