Justification for Punishment
Justification on punishments can vary depending on people’s point of views. Cases should be justified differently depending on the crime not by the book. Prisons does not deter offenders from actually offending which makes prisons a little useless when it comes to punishments. Not every case is going to be justified correctly, but there should be more of an effort to make it happen and make prisons actually deter. Ultimately, views on punishment should be handled different in every case, depending on the severeity of the crime and the offender’s crime history.
Views on the Justifciation of Punishment
Everyone has their own views and ideas for justifying cases and what should change to make the system better in
…show more content…
For example, an offender getting arrested for murder and has a big crime history and they are giving the offender a small punishment with a chance of parole; that is not justifying the case in my opinion or it is not even a punishment to begin with. There is even times when offenders commit a petty crime with no crime history and receive a harsh punishment which is something that is not justifying the case as well. A type of punishment that has become a controversy for a while is the use of capital punishment or the death penalty. Pollock (2016) “For this reason, some believe no mortal should have the power to inflict capital punishment because there is no way to guarantee that mistakes won’t be made.” (p.352). I agree with Pollock, no one should have the power to inflict capital punishment to any mortal because I believe it is a life changing decision. Then again, I am only in favor of capital punishment if the offender commited a crime or crimes that is just extreme to the point where prison is not going to do anything. There is other types of punishments that can justify a case …show more content…
If I knew for a fact that prisons did not deter, would I still be in favor of them? Now these are great questions. Now, prison usage I believe can cause a deterrence in offenders, but some I think are not phased by being incarcerated back and forth. I believe that when offender commits a crime repeatedly, their time in prison should go up higher every time they go back. I think prisons are a ineffective way to for offenders to deter. For some offenders being in prison is probably good enough for them; maybe because some were homeless or were not able to eat daily. Essentially, I think there is some deterrence in prisons, but I think it is not very effective. I think eventually offenders either get used to being in prison or become more strategized with other criminals. Yes, I would still be in favor of prisons if I knew for a fact that they did not deter. Even if I knew that prisons did not deter the reason I would still be in favor in them is where would offenders go if they commited violent crimes? They need to go somewhere. They need to be put away from society or else they would think that they did not do anything wrong. Private prisons and supermax prisons I believe could actually make offenders deter about going back to prison. You would not be able to do much if you were in any of those type of prisons. Finally, prisons are ineffecitve and do not
Being imprison is suppose to take criminals off the street so that they will not commit a new crime and prevent the people that are not criminals yet from committing a crime (deterrence). Some studies and research shows that neither of this outcomes transpired. In a scholarly paper I read by Michael Mueller-Smith from University of Michigan looked at court records from Harris County, Texas from 1980-2009. He noticed from is research that in Harris County people that are charged with similar crimes received different sentences depending on the judge that was appointed to them. After he notice the differences of the sentencing and the crime he than analyze what happen to the prisoners. He calculated roughly that each year in prison increases the chances that a prisoner would reoffend by 5.6%. Even the people who went to prison for lesser crimes would wound up committing more serious offenses the more time they spent in prison. To conclude with what Michael Mueller-Smith stated in his paper he thinks that letting criminals out of jail would increase crime and the lesser crime criminals would turn into career criminals. Within five years after the criminal has been release more than 75% of prisoner are arrested
Do two wrongs make a right? That is the question you should ask yourself. How can one life be worth more than another?s? Would you like to have your dignity, and even your basic human rights to stripped away from you at the flick of a switch or the pull of a trigger?
It is the firm belief and position here that committing such a crime as murder is punishable by death. Americans should take a position for anyone on death row, to be executed sooner rather than later.
Edward I. Koch uses his essay “The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?” to defend capital punishment. He believes that justice for murderous crimes is essential for the success of the nation. The possibility of error is of no concern to Koch and if would-be murderers can be deterred from committing these heinous crimes, he feels the value of human life will be boosted and murder rates will consequently plummet (475-479). Koch makes a valiant effort to express these views, yet research contradicts his claims and a real look at his idea of justice must be considered in order to create a fair nation for all.
This country is determined to prove that killing someone under certain circumstances is acceptable, when in all reality there can be no rationalization for the taking of another human life. Killing is murder. It is as simple as that. There have been so many different controversies surrounding this debate that often, the issues become clouded in false statistics and slewed arguments. The basic fact remains that killing is morally and ethically wrong. This fact does not disappear by simply changing the term "murder" to "capital punishment". The act is still the taking of a life. On these grounds, the death penalty should be abolished.
Incarceration may be best for those who treatment has little hope. There are some who would be better treated by other means. Many crimes have underlying issues. Those issues include things like mental illness, substance abuse, and poverty. Issues like those mentioned will receive help from incarceration alone. Many people with substance abuse issues have underlying issues which would need to be treated if the offender is to break the cycle of addiction. If those issues are not addressed, the cycle will start again when the offender is released. In this case the offender would revolve in and out of the correction system until the underlying issue was addressed. However, once the underlying issues is addressed, whether in or out of the prison environment, the cycle is potentially
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
Maybe if I saw more reports on how prison has improved our society and the criminals who live among us, I would see why we should work on reforming our prisons. Until then, it does not seem to be working. We trust in the government to provide for our safety, but we must take responsibility among ourselves. To understand that the current system does work and that its intent is not to provide a safe society. History has shown us that. What we have done or continue to do will not make this a safer place to live. The problem is not to reform our prison system, for this won't stop criminals to commit crimes, but to find ways and means to deteriorate them from doing the crime.
Prison is a form of deterrence. As stated in our lecture, if punishment is unpleasant, less crime will be committed. Thus, the possibility of going back to prison alone should be a deterrent for a previously convicted criminal. However, that is not the case, or else the recidivism rate would essentially be zero. According to the rational choice theory, certainty, severity, and swiftness greatly influence deterrence. If it is unlikely a person will get caught or the punishments aren’t very severe, it might encourage to them to reoffend. Studies have shown that programs like Scared Straight don’t actually scare potential offenders away at all. Therefore, while this theory may explain recidivism simply, it does not account for the many other
Statistics show that between 1993 and 1998 the average number of people in prison rose from 44,566 to 65,298, an increase of over 46%, and the Halliday report Making Punishments Work (Appendix 6, p130) published by the Home Office in 2001 estimated that the average offender carried out 140 offences per year . (Source: Civitas) This would surely indicate that the threat of punishment, even when considered by a rational, mentally capable person (we can assume that those in mainstream prison have been assessed as being mentally capable), exercising his own free will, is not sufficient to act as a deterrent?
There should always be consequences of bad behavior and crimes committed but prison is a terrible idea in that prospective. Prison system clearly doesn’t work. One important reason is throwing a bunch of badly behaved people together where the only options are to learn and be good at the game, or to become a never ending victim of the more dangerous people. Living conditions in prison are brutally terrible. Overcrowding , therapy programs, education system and such
Prison has been around in human society for many millions of years. Having someone who disobeyed the law of that village, town, city or country punished in some form of institution, cutting them off from people, is a common concept – a popular and supposedly “needed” process society has taken to doing for many years now has been put under the spotlight many times by many different figures and people in society. The question remains – do prisons only make people worse? Many articles have been published in many journals and newspapers of the western world (mainly the USA, UK and Australia) saying prison only makes a person worse yet no complaint of the method has come from the less liberal eastern societies; this only proves how in countries where the rights of humans are valued such issues as if prisons only make people worse are important and relevant to keeping fair to all.
Our life lessons are taught at a young age, to be exact they start at birth. Mimicking others as they perform certain task in their daily rituals. The play Wit focuses on a college professor that learns she has been diagnosed with advanced metastatic ovarian cancer and is ironically attended by a former student of hers. This student has already completed medical school and has completed his residency, but is furthering his journey with cancer by completing a fellowship with a profound doctor in his field of study. Throughout the duration of the play, we witness many occurrences go wrong during this patients’ treatment many of which are done by this fellow.
I believe that under certain circumstances that capital punishment should be allowed because if someone is going to commit mass murder they should pay with the ultimate human right which is of their life. This topic has been widely thought of in the world with a few philosophers really encompassing my views. Those are the views of Ernest Van Den Haag and Bruce Fein. Philosophers who oppose our views are such like Justice William Brennan and Hugo Adam Bedau. I will prove my point using the ideas of deterrence and morality of the issue of capital punishment. If the government would show that if you kill someone there will be a consequence for their actions and that the consequence would be equal to what they have done. The population will see that it isn’t worth taking another humans life. If we were to kill people that are committing these mass killings of innocent people there would not be as many criminals around. Therefore the streets would be a place people wouldn’t be afraid of anymore.
Capital Punishment is a controversial topic discussed in today's society. Capital punishment is often not as harsh in other countries as we may call harsh in our country. There is a heated debate on whether states should be able to kill other humans or not. But if we shall consider that other countries often have more deadly death penalties than we do. People that are in favor of the death penalty say that it saves money by not paying for housing in a maximum prison but what about our smaller countries that abide by the rule of the capital punishment. If one were to look at the issues behind capital punishment in an anthropological prospective than one would see that in some cases no one would assume that capital punishment here in the U.S. is bad. Now those opposed say that it is against the constitution, and is cruel and unusual punishment for humans to be put to his or her death. I believe that the death penalty is against the constitution and is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is cruel because you cannot punish anyone worse than by killing them. It is an unusual punishment because it does not happen very often and it should not happen at all. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be abolished, everywhere.