The Principles Of The Zinn Triad And Its Consequences

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

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.

Often, when a criminal is sentenced to the death penalty for committing a murder, people begin to question the legality and morality of it, and try to defend or attack it. One of the first few things that come to mind when people try to defend the death penalty is the statement, “an eye for an eye,” or the principle of lex talionis, meaning we treat people the way they have treated others (Textbook, 538). Although this argument is well-backed up, it does not always prove to be the best principle when determining the type of punishment, one deserves. Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist to the death penalty, discusses this idea in his article “An Eye for and Eye,” specifically within his argument stating that equality retributivism does not justify the death penalty and that it should be rejected (Textbook, 539). Equality retributivism, which is the idea that we penalize criminals with punishments that are equal to their crimes, serves as a great principle for some crimes but not all. I find this statement, along with Nathanson’s argument, to be true because not all crimes can have a punishment equal to it. Throughout this paper, I will discuss Nathanson’s argument, some objections raised, and lastly, whether the objection succeeds or not.

In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

“Complex/Capital Case.” I stared at these words typed on my local county sheriff’s inmate directory. Above was an image of a man — face beaten and showing dozens of gang-affiliated tattoos — and I attempted to see a resemblance between his face and my own. I spent hours researching what “complex/capital case” means, and once I read the words “death penalty,” and although I knew that he had yet to be tried, what I did know was that this was the end for him. On the screen in front of me was the image of a man who was convicted of seventy-one counts of assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and attempted murder.

Secondly, they should be addressed the needs of offenders and the deficits in their lives that contributed to their offending. And thirdly, sentences should not be severe, intrusive, or damaging to an offender’s later decarceration to live a righteous life than is minimally necessary to achieve valid purposes of the sentence he or she receives (Tonry 508). An addition to these are proportionality, which means that sentences should correspond in severity to the seriousness of the crimes which they are inflicted. Also, regularity, which signifies that sentences should be guided by official standards to make the process clear, procedures fair, and allow judges to be more accountable (Tonry 508). Moreover, the American Criminal Code must be taken into consideration. Two features must be altered if the sentencing is to become fair, effective, and just. Firstly, the harsh sentencing laws must be revoked, and secondly the limits, that matches the offense seriousness, must be put on the lawful sentences (Tonry 514). Moreover, Tonry mentioned about future changes that, “If adopted, they would greatly reduce the number of people in prison in future years, but their adoption would not significantly reduce the scale of American imprisonment in 2015 or in 2020. Doing that will require enactment of new laws authorizing reconsideration of sentences now being served (Tonry 523).

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

The society generally has established customs and moral imperative to guide the conduct of each member of that particular society. These norms designating certain ways in which people ought to live in the society exist in societal laws and moral prescription. The justifications for the ideal practices in the society have been found in the desire to maintain peaceful coexistence in the society. The extent of freedom of an individual is therefore often curtailed for the greater good of the society. These utilitarian considerations have been discussed amidst the concept and rationale of punishment. John Stuart Mill, Michel Foucault and Kantian ethics have been used to justify or refute the notion and rationale of punishment in our society. These ethical perspectives provide useful insight into understanding punishment and its justifications or otherwise. Punishment is necessary as a social control tool and must be exerted with reasonableness and with due regard for the aim for which it is exerted.

Within the past decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of heinous crimes committed, causing some of the laws to significantly change. During the 1970s, some dramatic changes occurred when laws shifted from one extreme to another: rehabilitation to retribution. Such circumstances created an additional emphasis on the offense rather than on the offender. During the 1980s, the “get-tough-on-crime” era began; thus, radical changes in laws continued up until the late 1990s. Throughout the period of the Industrial Society, the United States had two bipolar types of punishment: harsh and lenient. Today, the main focus of the Criminal Justice System is about retribution and punishment.

To formulate the law, it was decided that the most valuable approach to reduce violent crimes was through a mandated policy decision requiring identification through past behavior of those who demonstrated clear conduct to participate in violent criminal and whose conduct was not discouraged by the usual concepts of punishment. Reed (2004) stated, “The overall purpose of punishment within the criminal justice system is to prevent the commission of crimes to deter recidivism. For this objective to be successful, punishment must be effective in addressing the problems and solutions for the entire system, not just in individual cases” (p. 502). In reducing crimes, various methods and theories are taken into account. Some of these methods are additional police, additional courts, mandatory sentencing, and increased prosecutorial resources (Reed, 2004). Because the Three Strikes Law varies from state to state, this leads to the many problems it causes in the criminal justice system.

Even though the criminal justice system has guidelines to following when sentencing criminals, there are still sentencing issues. In other words, to make the sentencing more fair and equal, several issues have been addressed. These issues are proportionality, equity, social debt and truth in sentencing. Proportionality is a standard that deals with the punishment fitting the crime. The equity principle deals with ensuring that punishment for one crime is the same as punishment for a similar crime. Social debt is the next sentencing principle. With social debt, the judge reviews past behavior or criminal records in order to impose a fair sentence. Finally, the truth in sentencing ensures that inmates are not released from prison without serving the majority of his or her sentence. In other words, credit for good behavior or educational programs would not allow the inmate to be released if he or she only served a small portion of the sentence (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).

"Any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offense must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing" retribution, denunciation, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation which will all be discussed in this essay.

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

Source: Reprinted from The Limits of the Criminal Sanction by Herbert L. Packer, with the permission of the publishers, Stanford University Press. ( 1968 by Herbert L. Packer.

It should be noted however that the classical school of thought has had an enduring influence as many legal systems are built on some of its key precepts. The idea of intent for example, emphasizes the importance of the state of mind of the individual and their capacity for making choices. Notions of proportionality in relation to punishment are