The Theory Of Discipline On The Wrongdoer ( Baier & Fulhrmann )

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

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.

Crime is inevitable in society, whether it be in traditional societies or in modern society. However, with an action, there are always has to be a consequence, however when breaking the law, the consequences are rather bad, and sometimes harsh. This is called punishment. Discipline is enforcing acceptable patterns of behaviour and teaching obedience. In an excerpt called Discipline and Punish, contemporary theorist Michael Foucault explains these two concepts. This paper will summarize the author’s main points; provide a comparison with a theorist previously lectured on in class, as well as a personal interpretation of Foucault’s arguments.

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.

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

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).

“Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” - Ghandi. Have you ever wondered if everybody retaliated when they felt done they was done wrong. What would the would the world be like? Or even if people was wrongly prosecuted for crimes committed. Well that's what happened back in Babylon empire when a ruler named Hammurabi. Eye for an eye doctrine was followed back then i believe the laws was fair based on the times they lived in, but the punishment for each law was very harsh.

It has been discovered from multiple sources that ever since ancient times, punishment was a necessary concept in order to prevent crime or wrongdoings. Ancient laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law (or Law given to Moses atop Mt. Sinai) use different methods to attempt to prevent or minimize the unavoidable occurrence of crime. Hammurabi’s Code using retribution (e.g. an eye for an eye), and the Mosaic Law using fear of God’s judgement. Neither of these have proven to be very effective. Since the dawn of human law, new laws have emerged. others have been forgotten, and many have been refined. Logically, it would be impossible to rid society of all actions that harm another person, which means the controllers of our societies (corrupt governments backed by mega-corporations) must concoct a way to keep society from descending into chaos, while still retaining their bloated wallets. The first prisons came about almost immediately after the first sets of laws. In Ancient Greece, “Imprisonment as a penalty was used initially for those who could not afford to pay their fines. Eventually, since impoverished Athenians could not pay their fines, leading to indefinite periods of imprisonment, time limits were set instead” (Allen). For some odd reason, society has still not evolved from using the Machiavellian method of instilling fear in order to prevent rebellious acts. Our supposedly ‘wise and responsible leaders’ actually believe that by using isolation and

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

I agree with you on the eye for an eye. It is especially prominent in foreign countries and can be somewhat extreme. If someone is found guilty of theft, their hands are cut off. A person is found guilty of infidelity can be stoned to death.

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

Does our punishment really fit the crimes? Some would not agree depending on the crime committed. Our society is and has been a more of an eye for an eye when it comes to punishment. In history most view punishment as an “eye for an eye” to make the punishment fit the crimes. Example of this is “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the

Almost all general philosophies of punishment contribute different methods for determining any punishment’s fit with crime. Retributivism, a philosophy, broadly justifies the punishment that a person receive for breaking the law, through justice and the principle of desert. A common form of expressing the ideology of retribution is “an eye for an eye.” This theory consists of two main parts, the offender deserving punishment and the punishment should ft the crime. I will discuss the claim made by Retrbituivisist’s through focusing on whether Retributivist’s assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.

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.

What are the purposes of punishment? Which do you consider to be the most important and why?