The Retributive And Utilitarian Theory Of Punishment

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

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

Various theories have been advanced to justify or explain the goals of criminal punishment, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Sometimes punishment advances more than these goals. At other times, a punishment may promote one goal and conflict with another.

I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

PLEASE NOTE: Philosophical theories of punishment, such as deterrence (based on the ethical theory of utilitarianism), retributivism (based on the ethical theory of deontology), denunciation, and restorative justice are covered comprehensively in a different course, PHL 449, Philosophy of Punishment.

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.

The first goal of punishment is retribution. Retribution, also known as deserved punishment, it is when one is punished for committing a crime that harmed other people in some manner (277; ch.9). The purpose of this goal is for the criminal to understand that if you commit a crime, consequences will come with that. Depending on the crime that is committed will decide how serious the punishment is. A lot of factors are considered with retribution during the sentencing process. Factors such as the age of the defendant, their previous offense history, not only that but the victims of the crime. The judge might give the defendant a sentence that will not only punish him for the crime but also make the family feel that the proper sentence was given to the criminal.

The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person

The Different Aims of Sentencing There are a number of reasons why a society punishes offenders. These include, among others, to discourage the offender from committing further crimes (individual deterrence), to help the offender, so that he or she won’t offend again (rehabilitation), to prevent the offender from committing further crimes through imprisonment (incapacitation) and to show society’s disapproval of the crime (denunciation). Retribution is to punish on the premise that it is a payback for the offence (Retribution carries with it the notion of “Do the crime, do the time”) Reparation is aimed at compensating the victim of the crime usually by ordering the offender to pay order to

It is easy to see that punishment may deter the violator from committing similar acts in the future. If punishment can serve as a general deterrent for the society, it should have more of a deterrent effect on the person suffering from it. This goes along with the next utilitarian philosophy of punishment, which is incapacitation (Brody & Acker, 2010). When a violator is incapacitated, or incarcerated, they are keep away from the rest of the community, and usually in an environment that is very uncomfortable. This also supports the philosophies of general and individual deterrence, in that once members of a society know that they will be incapacitated in an undesirable place, they will not want to risk their freedom by violating the law. As for the individual deterrent, once a person has been incapacitated, then released, their experience should prevent them from committing future violations. This previous experience with incapacitation also supports the next utilitarian philosophy for punishment, which is reform (Brody & Acker, 2010). It is hoped that by making the punishment, and incapacitation so uncomfortable, that the violators will reform their criminal ways, and become viable members of the community. This brings us to the last utilitarian philosophy for punishment, which is vengeance (Brody & Acker, 2010). This philosophy is geared more towards the victims, who suffered

One of the oldest justifications for punishment involves the principles of retribution. Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a cri-me, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes be viewed as a

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 utilitarian theory of punishment is another approach to the criminal justice system. Richard B. Brandt believes that this type of punishment is frequently found in Great Britain and the United States. He believes that utilitarian’s differ in their thoughts as to what is the “ideal” system would be but the punishment extended should be fair and that the threat of punishment may be more important than the punishment itself. Brandt discusses the difference in the prosecution and defense used to obtain maximum utility and how the punishment should be implemented and how to mitigate the punishment.