The Tractor's Retribution In Walter B. Case

it can be shown that the victims could take revenge from the criminals themselves. Some

People will sometimes think which would be the most effective method to use to right wrongs redemption or revenge? When righting a wrong, redemption is a more effective method than revenge. Redemption will usually result in less violence and there will be less problems to deal with. Revenge on the other hand, will usually result in more violence and it occasionally bites back on whoever was getting revenge on someone else or a group of people for some specific reason and sometimes things will tend to not go as planned.

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

Retribution has been associated with increased punishment, decreased treatment, but not with reduced recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). Not only has there been no reduction in recidivism, there has also been no increase in deterrence through the use of punitive measures (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Deterrence-oriented interventions have actually been shown to increase recidivism by 12%, as demonstrated by Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis (as referenced by Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,

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

This is a fair punishment because the person are restoring what they have caused to be

Louis P. Pojman provides an argument for retribution as he states, “The moral justification of punishment is not vengeance, but desert. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (p. 57). Therefore, retribution is not based on hatred for the criminal, but is the belief that the criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to his crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. Retribution, as explained by Louis Pojman, supports the death penalty as it proposes that those who have taken a life deserve to lose their own life.

Our desire for retribution dates back as early as the 18th Century BC. We feel the need to see the wrongdoer have consequences for their actions. To be punished and feel the pain that their victim felt so they can also suffer. Some people love that idea that the person who commited a crime suffers by whatever means necessary. Knowing

The abuse of power in order to make a profit is a prominent theme today in current events and throughout the novel The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Today, people in positions of power use that power to take advantage of their workers and customers in order to benefit themselves. In The Grapes of Wrath, most of the Joads’ problems stem from people using the power they have to deceive them. Economic abuse of power is not only prevalent today, but is also prevalent in The Grapes of Wrath as shown through the bank owners, salesmen, brokers, and the landowners.

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

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

Retribution, as the next aim of punishment, is associated with the idea that the wrongdoers have to be penalized and punished for violation against the civilians. Retribution could be viewed from two aspects: revenge and restoration. According to Oxford English

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].