Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical theories against capital punishment
Essays on capital punishment
Behavioral theory and crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical theories against capital punishment
Well, I have done my project on economic theory of criminal law to understand the economic aspects of criminal law. While doing this project I came across the idea as what should be considered as a crime? What should be criteria for determining a crime? By this I mean to say what the acts which should be punished. Now the other follow up question which comes is that after determining which acts are to be punished, how should we determine their extent?
By the above statement I meant what should be the punishment given for each such act or to be more precise what should be the degree of punishment? For example if person A has committed theft of bread and he is given death sentence then it will definitely be considered as disproportionate.
In search of these answers I came across the traditional theory of criminal law. In this theory I came across two aspects. The first one is utilitarianism and the other “retributivism” which talks about moral behavior.
The next thing which comes is the criminal intent which talks about the necessary intent for a commission of crime.
After all this I come to economic theory of criminal law.
Theory of criminal law
This theory gives us the answer of the two basic but most important questions which are what act should be treated as a crime and punished and till what extent its punishment should be. This theory provides us with two aspects Utilitarianism and Retributivism.
Utilitarianism
Having a similar nature to the economic theory of torts, the economic theory of crimes tries to minimize the social cost, i.e. the cost harm caused by crimes and the cost of its prevention.
According to this aspect the act which if treated as a crime reduces the social cost should be treated as a crime. Law...
... middle of paper ...
...n the case of Bacchan Singh, it was given not to restore the interest of the plaintiff but to show what punishment should a person have to for committing a crime with that much level of seriousness.
An Economic theory of Criminal Law
The economic theory of criminal law provides us with a predictive model of criminal behavior. The first question which comes into our minds what is the need of criminal law in a society is civil law not enough to deal with the crimes.
Why Criminal Law?
So, to understand the need of criminal law the best example could be found when no perfect compensation i.e. a state where victim becomes indifferent between an injury with damages or no injury at all. So, in a case where no perfect compensation can be given instead of compensation or with compensation, the punishment is given.
If we want to understand this concept then an example is v
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
Crime is some action/omission that causes harm in a situation that the person/group responsible ‘ought’ to be held accountable and punished irrespective of what the law book of state say.
Retribution is the philosophy best explained by the famous saying, “an eye for an eye”. Those that believe in this form of justice hold a strict and harsh view on punishments for crime. The proponents of retribution believe that severe penalties act as deterrence to future crime, however, studies
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
Economics can have controversial ideas, and this can be expressed in terms of crime. Economic theory would suggest that there is an ‘optimal level of crime’. As Stigler (1970) argues, ‘there is one decisive reason why society must forego ‘complete’ enforcement of the rule: enforcement is costly.’ The extent of enforcement of laws depends upon the amount of resources devoted to the task. Stigler goes on to argue that society could make certain crime does not pay by paying enough to apprehend most criminals, but such a level of enforcement would of course be expensive.
Another way that some argue against pure restitution is to say that is does not have an acceptable implication that punishment does have. Pure restitution lacks implications that are backed with punishment. Additionally, it is argued that pure restitution has an unacceptable implication that punishment also shares. Some say that pure restitution is too individualistic. It is also argued that some harm is beyond repair, and restitution will not solve or make these issues better, and the theory of pure restitution allows us to do nothing at all to the offender. A very controversial issue here is the question of murder.
"And Punishment: Crime." The Economist US 27 January 1996, v338 n7950. : 25. Online. Expanded Academic Index. 16 October 1999.
The issue in this question is regarding the effect of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) to previous English sentencing system regarding one of the aims of punishment i.e. retribution. It is a duty for courts to apply under section 142 (1) of CJA 2003. The section requires the courts to have regarded the aims in imposing sentence to offenders which has now plays a smaller role in serving punishment. And how profound this changes has been.
Criminals come from all walks of life. Some are wealthy business owners while others are poverty-stricken and homeless. Some are 60 years old while others are 16. What makes people decide to become a criminal? Why does one person who gets arrested and faces punishment learn from the mistake and does nothing illegal again while others become prison regulars? Criminological theory seeks to answer these questions in an effort to mold societal influence and implement programs to deter people from committing crimes. One such theory is the classical theory. Even though some believe that crime is based mainly on social influencers like in the differential association theory, the classical theory is more accurate because it suggests that each person makes the choice to commit a crime based on risk versus reward and because most intentional criminal acts pay some sort of benefit, rarely are they seen as not profitable.
It also advocated for the abolition of the death penalty. Discretion used by judges was unlimited, which saw extremely inconsistent and harsh penalties applied to offenders, with disadvantaged offenders being given much harsher penalties than those offenders with a higher social status (Monachesi, 1955). The Classical School of Criminology worked off four main principles: firstly, that individuals act according to their rationality and their own free will, secondly, individuals will weigh up the benefits of committing the crime and compare the benefits to the consequences if they are caught, thirdly, the severity of the punishment must be tied closely with the severity of the crime to act as a deterrent to others and finally, the punishment must be carried out swiftly in an attempt to deter and reduce further crime (Jenkins,
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
punishment to be done to whoever did the crime. If the criminal doesn't get the kind of
Different schools of thought propose varying theoretical models of criminality. It is agreeable that criminal behaviour is deep rooted in societies and screams for attention. Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.