In order to deter others from committing offenses, a consequence for a persons actions must be implemented. The consequence is better known as a punishment in today’s society. According to Brody and Acker (2010, p.2), punishment can be defined as an essential attribute of the criminal process. Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart deemed that there were five elements to punishment. A brief description of each element along with my opinion if I agree or disagreewith each element.
The first element according to H.L.A. Hart (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.2) is that punishment must involve pain or other consequences normally considered unpleasant. Being a fairly open-minded person, I am in agreement that the punshment administered, must in fact be unpleasant.
…show more content…
In terms of this element, I will be in agreement with it. I believe that an impartial party, such as a Judge or Jury need to impose punishment on the offender. It would not need to be the victim or the victim’s family as the punishment would tend to be more unfair.
The last element of punishment, according to H.L.A. Hart (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.2), is that punishment must be imposed and administered by an authority constituted by a legal system which the offense is committed. We would not want the mob or a drug cartel imposing punishment on others that a legal system found them guilty of a crime. Therefore, the punishment imposed must be a neutral party with no evidenciary gains from imposing punishment.
Although H.L.A. Hart’s five elements of punishment assisted in eliminating some of the more petty issues at hand, it did not clarify more modern day implications. For instance in the matter of punishment, the elements did not specify how long it should take to impose a punishment. According to Robinson (2011, p.1093), imposing a punishment months to years after an alleged illegal act occurred does little to deter future crimes from taking place. Thus placing the entire criminal system in
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.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
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.
Punishment, when speaking on serious terms, is socially valuable because it deters criminals from repeating their crimes and may keep others from repeating the same acts. If in fact the deterring effect misses its point, it is the fault of the justice system the all the red tape found behind it. At its current standing, the system is viewed as a joke because no authority is taken, no one believes, let alone fears, the system. Both the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, including many technicalities which have little nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence. If these wasteless amount of appeals were eliminated or at least controlled, then the procedure would be much shorter, less expensive and more
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...
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
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
Capital punishment is based on the proposition that there must be consequences for one’s wrong doing. In society, the message is clear; if one does something punishable, au...
Punishment is reserved to those who have committed a transgression, a dominant and common response to injustices upon a victim (Okimoto and Weznzel 2008 p.346). It is a sense of retribution against immoral behavior, not solely for the purpose of punishment against the offender, but
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
The American prison system has long touted the principal of deterrence – meaning that crime can be controlled by giving very harsh sentences to those who are caught, hoping that future crimes will be avoided because a would be perpetrator sees and fears what the potential punishment of following through with such an act might be. The idea that a single person’s punishment is going to keep others from committing a crime a key argument for our system of crime and punishment. This paper is going to focus on this currently failing policy of deterrence, examining its true nature, and then discuss its place, if any, that it has in our law enforcement system.
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.
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.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular
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.