More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of retributive justice
Restorative justice theories
Concepts of restorative justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There are four different types of Justice Systems, Distributive and Retributive are the two systems that are very different yet alike. Both of these systems serve different purposes whether they have a positive or negative effect. Distributive is all about equality hoping to balance everything without causing problems. Retributive is about punishing those who have disobeyed in exchange for a positive outcome. Equality and punishment are main principles in the system but how diverse they are and the results they provide are what is intriguing. The Distributive Justice System is known as the “fair share” (Maiese 1). What it means is that it revolves around equity, equality, and need. Equity means that one’s reward should amount to one’s contribution to society. You settle for what you accomplish rather than settling for something less than the work you have completed. Equality is when everyone receives the same amount of reward no matter how much or how little you have accomplished. It benefits those who work less but not to those who contribute the most. Need is unlike the others, no matter how much work you have accomplished, the one’s that require it the most shall receive the reward. Needless to say, you bust your …show more content…
ass off for other people. An example of the Distributive justice system would be having a job. Everyday millions of individuals struggle as they work roughly 40 plus hours to receive their paycheck. Equity comes into play as they receive a check for the work they have accomplished as equality occurs as well when both male and females receive same check for completing the same amount of work. Need also plays a role in having a job, every paycheck taxes are withdrawn from checks and at the beginning of the year, the ones in need tend to receive a larger sum of money that was collected from everyone’s taxes. More crime tends to initialize as many find it unfair that their money has been collected by others. The Retributive Justice System is known as the concept of those who do not play by the rules. They will be brought to justice and deserve to suffer consequences for their offences regardless of whom they are. The perception of deterrence also plays a part in Retributive Justice System. The hope through deterrence is that the penalty for committing a crime is large enough that people will not take part in illegal activities due to the risk of being penalized is too high. “Retributive justice also plays a dominant role in international legal proceedings, responding to violations of international law, human rights, and war crimes” (Maiese 1). Every individual is punished by the outcomes they chose in hopes of them being disciplined for their actions. An example for retributive justice system would be protests. Many protests eventually evolve into riots increasing crime, everyone involved will have to be penalized. If everyone in the riot is not penalized, officers tend to use force and stand their ground to protect uninvolved individuals hoping that they can soon put an end to this case. Once the riot has settled down, everyone that has been captured shall be penalized for committing their crime. In a way, both Distributive and Retributive justice are alike, but just as they are alike, they are different.
The difference between these two is that distributive acts upon equality which is its main principle, meaning everyone should get treated the same way in a positive way. For the accomplishments that have been committed, a reward shall be presented to everyone that was a part of it. That’s what equality is about and that is what the Distributive Justice System is about. Retributive acts upon punishment which is it main principle. Everyone that deserves to be punish will be punished for the crimes that have been committed. All this happens in hopes of future wrong doing to decease, which is why Retributive acts upon punishment to eliminate
crime.
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
Greg Mantle, F. D., & Dhami, M. K. (2005). Restorative justice and three individual theories of crime. Internet Journal of Criminology IJC , 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/5914
There are three type of sentencing models used by judges for the sentencing phase of trials; indeterminate, determinate, and mandatory. These sentencing models are used to bring justice to those who are convicted of crimes and must now live with the consequences of their actions. Justice is a word that has a different meaning to each individual person. This paper will discuss, in detail, the meaning of justice, the three types of sentencing models, the pros and cons of each model, and the impact each one has had and continues to have on corrections.
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
There are three types of Justice discussed in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic which are Retributive, Procedural, and Social Justice. Retributive justice is the type of justice that requires someone to pay back their debts if they took something. According to Cephalus, justice requires ‘repayment’ from those who have taken something. For example, The death penalty can be considered retributive justice because someone may have took a life and now their life will be taken from them in return. Procedural justice is doing good for someone that you are close with but doing harm to someone you do not get along with. Polemarchus believes that justice is doing good to good people and doing bad to bad people. For example, Giving your friend a ride to
Over the next 10 years the criminal Justice system could entirely change with the passing of a major law, epidemic, or failed service. Consequently, every since 9-11 our justice system has become much more open minded. Therefore, resulting in the strict enforcement of laws to protect its citizens. Nothing ever stays the same for too long. New developments related to science, technology, DNA analysis, and countless other tools and other factors are changing for the better in solving cases, prevention of crimes, and aiding in investigations. Where there is change there will be changes in the way we handle everyday processing. For example, booking a criminal, acquiring evidence, and interrogation. This also results in the field of criminal justice having no choice but to adapt to the slowly changing times or else be left behind.
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.
Does justice exist in America? Yes, justice does exist in America, but for whom is the question real question. In America all citizens should feel equal to one another but that is not the case. Rather than feeling equal to one another, the blacks and whites of the country feel hatred to one another. In American justice is served but it is mainly for whites and not blacks. The word justice is defined as the quality of being fair and reasonable. Unfortunately in America, justice is not always equally served due to racism in the modern society.
From an equal justice perspective, “all people should be treated equally before the law and equality may best be achieved through individual discretion in the justice process” (Siegel and Worrall, 2013, page 20). Through this perspective, all criminals who commit the same crime would be equally subjected to the same form of punishment. Thus extralegal factors, which include the person’s gender, age, race or previous criminal activity, would not be considered by the judge, when they sentence the severity of the punishment. This limits the injustice within the system and any unfair treatment an offender a may receive while in the system. It also sets clear and rigid guidelines for judges to uphold during sentencing.
...he justice system is not always successful. Although the idea of fairness is present, how it plays out can vary. Justice is only a moral based idea. People are bound by their own values, not a universal set of values.
When applying the Van Soest model, “distributive justice is looking at the contract involving what society owes the person” (Van Soest, 2003). According to Van Soest (2003), “distributive justice has particular relevance for the professional role of advocating for social and economic justice.” In addition, Van Soest (2003) also stated that, “for social workers, the distribution of goods other than political or economic resources, such as health services, education, and leisure, is within the realm of social justice.”
As one of the most influential retributivists of the 20th century, Herbert Morris offers a distributive justice characterization of retributive punishment. According to his view, laws act as constraints on behavior which society deems collectively advantageous. When individuals deviate from these laws for their own rational reasons, they are effectively subverting the system by deriving personal gain without paying the societal costs, essentially making them comparable to free riders. In order to restore the equilibrium that crime disrupts, punishment of a lawbreaker must remove the unfair advantage ascertained through committing the crime.
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.