Theories 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

Retribution, Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation are four philosophies of punishment. Retribution is the punishment and is simply in proportion to the offenses seriousness. It is the "eye to eye" justice system. Incapacitation prevents further criminal activities and behaviors. It physically restraining the offender from future misconduct. Deterrence prevents through making examples of the offender being punished.

The general deterrence theory and specific deterrence theory are two explanations or rationales as to why the policy of life imprisonment was introduced [5]. Firstly, life imprisonment may have been introduced to show a demonstration effect. This is based on the idea that when we see others who have been caught and punished, it is assumed that we will not do the same thing they have done. It is based on the idea that someone who commits an offense sets an example for the rest of society. Another explanation for the introduction of the policy may be based around specific deterrence. This is the idea that the actual person experiencing punishment and retribution will encourage them to make a different choice if released [4]. Offenders will think twice before doing it again, however there are limitations to this theory. For example, research shows that when punished, sometimes offenders get attention and punishment gives offenders recognition. Finally, it is the notion of the severity of the punishment. For example, as a punishment becomes more severe, the less likely people are to engage in it. Therefore, severe punishments such as life sentences may result in less people to engage in severe crimes. In culmination, it is the laws surrounding the Criminal Code of Canada that govern these severe crimes by

Yet, the punishment of life sentence allows criminal to maintain social interaction and inflicts much less pain on his acquaintances. In terms of consciousness and happiness, the capital punishment deprives criminal of his perception and sensation, two essential abilities of human beings, and permanently excludes him from all beauty and enjoyments in the world. Although retentionists might say that the long-term imprisonment is more painful since it evokes an endless feeling of tediousness and suffering, it is undeniable that the capital punishment irreversibly eradicates the possibility of feeling happiness. Literally a denial of life, capital punishment is incomparable to other punishment in depth and severity, while at the same time it is the harshest punishment that has no crime deserving it because an individual’s humanity can be denied under no circumstance.

He explains how this principle guides humanity by asking “how would punishment increase the happiness of society?” Some utilitarians may agree, in part, with Menninger as they view that “ a system of punishment, offers no incentive for the victim to involve himself in the criminal justice process other than to satisfy his feelings of duty or revenge [..]” (Barnett p 285). He discusses how even punishment which seeks to change an offender’s moral outlook or scare him, does nothing to provide them with skills needed to survive in the real world. Barnett offers up a new paradigm of restitution; in the old paradigm two people are seen at the same level, when a criminal commits an act against someone the victim is brought down and then by imprisoning the criminal they are also brought down; whereas in restitution both the victim and the criminal would be brought back

In order for us to understand the moral theories surrounding the justification of punishment we must first accept that punishment exists to benefit the society we live in. Punishment as a whole should protect a community by sanctioning crimes to a significant degree whilst preventing them from reoccurring. If a punishment does not protect a community it is believed that that punishment is unjust and will be unfair to both the criminal and the community members. I believe that a retributivist style of punishment only focuses on the treatment of the singular rather than that of the masses. It is for this reason that I will argue why a consequentialist or utilitarian theory best allows us to understand the justification of punishment.

Description of the Article “A deterrence theory holds that criminal punishment is justified because punishment reduces or deters crime” (Lee, 2). This is the core idea of deterrence theory, where if the punishment is harsh enough it would in turn hope to deter other potential criminals. However, Lee believes that this scope it too narrow because of its lack to recognize its shortcomings.

Under the utilitarian model, distributive justice has three possible objectives when handing out punishment. The three outcomes of justice are incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Newmark, 2017b). Incapacitation seeks to prevent future crime by isolating the offender(s) to protect other members in society (Newmark, 2017b). Blanco Garcia would receive a life sentence under this model so that he will not harm anyone else in the future. The punishment does not necessarily have to fit the crime under this model, as long as future crime is prevented (Newmark, 2017b). Regardless of the seriousness of Blanco Garcia’s crime, to prevent him from recidivating, society should separate him from society altogether. This is because it is assumed that “offenders are determined to commit crimes; it is in their nature” (Newmark,

The first philosophical underpinning I will introduce is Retribution. This process of punishment is derived from the famous “eye for an eye” mentality. Retribution focuses on proportionality and punishes offenders based on the severity of their crimes. Therefore, a person who has committed murder will receive a longer sentence that someone who was brought in for shoplifting according to the principles of retribution.

Supporters of the utilitarian justice model believe that the sentence of an offender should be based on what is good for society whether that is imprisonment, rehabilitation, or to serve as deterrence. This is a “forward looking” model unlike the retributive justice model. The punishment in this model has to be larger than the advantages of committing this crime (Banks, 2013). The utilitarian model seeks to prevent the crime from occurring by becoming a deterrent effect.

Specific rules and regulations are among essential components ensuring successful functioning of the society. MacKinnon and Fiala suggest that "for a criminal law to be a law and not just a request, sanctions must be attached to it" (p. 365). Various theories exist, which attempt to determine what would be the optimal course of crime prevention and legal repercussion to the violators of the law. The deterrence argument holds a utilitarian perspective on the punishment and concentrates on the proactive ways to enhance safety by increasing public awareness of the consequence of the law-breaking acts, keeping punishment as a viable threat. It is directed to prevent people from violating the law or deter them from doing so. It supposes that once

Punishment is also justified by the possibility of enabling rehabilitation and resocialisation of the offender. Whether by a custodial or a non-custodial penalty, punishment will provide means of re-educating the offender, so that he will not commit further crimes. Also based on utilitarianism (check reference), this paradigm lived a period of great acceptance during most of the 20th century and declined in the 1970s, but has returned to some importance from the middle of the 1980s (Von Hirsch & Maier, principled, 33).

The later occurs when a specific offender is deterred from crime through sanctions. Thus, the benefits and drawbacks of crime have sway with both deterrence and rational choice theories, but rational choice doesn’t make headway for a population as a whole or limit the individual to those previously punished.

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.

This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right?