The Punishment Of A Criminal

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

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.

This philosophy's thought is that the victim of a crime is part of the sentencing process. This means that persons found guilty of committing crimes must compensate the victim of their crime. Restoration is the attempt to make the victims of crimes whole again. This philosophy makes the attempt to make someone guilty of a crime actually pay for their crime to the victim.

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

The second thesis of pure moralistic retributivism, that moral guilt is a sufficient condition for punishment, is far more contentious (Feinber 647). One of the common counterarguments to this point which Feinberg notes is similar to the old addage “two wrongs don’t make a right”. If punishment is justified irrespective of future consequences, and it is assumed that the chosen punishment (i.e. prison time, fine) isn’t itself a good, than how can this negative action be justified if it doesn’t necessarily bring about some goodness? Retributivists often respond by using the example of sadness as a response to suffering. Neither sadness nor suffering are inherently good, but sadness in response to someone else’s suffering is uniquely appropriate (Feinberg 647). In the same way that sadness is the appropriate response to suffering or teachers grade is the appropriate response to a students performance on a test, punishment is the appropriate response to moral guilt on the basis of justice. The concept of “justice”, the assignment of action on the basis of desert alone, will become imporant later.

American criminal justice system is a system of practices an institution of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring, and mitigating crime, and punishing those who violated laws with criminal behavior and rehabilitation efforts. Furthermore, executing people is an effective way of crime control policy. To the best of knowledge, there are no hidden costs that undermine its effectiveness.

The unique opportunity to visit correctional facilities rarely presents itself to a standard member of our society. That being said, it was exhilarating to be given the chance to do so. The reason being is that the rehabilitative or retributive institutions that are utilized after sentencing hold a great deal of importance for stopping criminal behaviors. A facility focused too intently on punishing the offender has little to no chance of keeping said individual from behind bars. It’s similar to being too strict with children; they have the potential to become rebellious and attempt to lash out in a way that allows them to feel free. Punishment is a means to reinforce negative behaviors. The individual is labeled a criminal and as

The concept of retribution is generated if someone commit a crime that very bad and people are afraid to speak out because of fear of retribution. The retributive theory is punishing the offender by taking away their advantage that they might have gained from their criminal or illegal actions. Due to this theory offenders deserve to be punished for the wrongful acts they have committed. (Meyer, 2003)

I think that people who commit crimes aren’t bad people, but make bad choices in themselves. People should be rehabilitating the wrong doers instead of punishing them to become more violent. For example, teens make wrong decisions by deciding to hang out with the troubled teens. Teens model what their friends do and eventually become this person they’re not.

In this critical review, I will start by identifying the area of punishment within criminal justice, looking at different methods of punishment from a historical view and contemporary view. I will be looking at the changes of punishment in society and will be evaluating how these changes relate to contemporary practices. When assessing these changes, social and historical aspects that are relevant will be considered when researching and analysing information. I will look at sources such as book chapters, journals, and articles to support my arguments and to help me gain knowledge on the history of punishment which will allow me to review the changes of punishment in society. I will also draw some attention to the continuities of punishment throughout history and how this is similar in society today.

The four justifications for punishment are as follows: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection. Retribution, as defined by Society: The Basics, is “an act of moral vengeance by which society makes the offender suffer as much as the suffering caused by the crime” (Macionis 196). This justification is like the saying, “an eye for an eye.” While this justification may allow for society to feel as though the perpetrator has been equally punishment for their crime, this justification leaves little room for the offender to improve and change their ways. In the public view, this justification is similar to revenge and may seem like an easy punishment to be a part of, but is not the best option in regards to helping tot society

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.

Retributive justice means an eye for an eye. Meaning your punishment will equal to the harm you’ve done. If one goes out and kill, they may receive life in prison. Depending on the situation they could also receive the death penalty. The justice feels that one should pay of its actions which I am in agreement. If a

For retributionists, punishment is backward looking, justified by the crime that has been committed and carried out to atone for the damage already done. Retributivism covers all theories that justify punishment because the offender deserves it. This is interpreted in two ways, either a person must be punished because they deserve it (deserving is a sufficient reason for punishment), or a person must not be punished unless they deserve it (deserving is a necessary but not sufficient condition for punishment). There are two distinct types of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence. Many strands of retrivbutism including Lex Talionis which seeks to restore the balance between offender and victim. The third is in accordance with the grievance principle; that

There are four main purposes of prisons and those are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. These have been integrated through two well-known justifications for punishment which are retribution and reductivism. Retributivism justifies punishment by claiming that it is what offenders deserve whilst reductivism justifies punishment saying that it reduces the incident of crime in the future.