More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of retributive justice
Sentencing theory Retributivism
Concept of restorative justice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Retribution – is a correctional aim which is to hold a person who has committed a crime accountable for committing a crime against another or society in the form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) What we look at in retribution is when someone is punished there is legitimacy in the punishment of a particular crime that was committed. Some of the pros of retribution are retribution can make a person or society feel safer or a feeling of justice being served when a person is punished for the crime they committed. The con of retribution is during court proceedings the prosecution and the offender’s lawyer may come to a plea agreement which could give the offender a lesser sentence than what he or she would have gotten originally. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle. …show more content…
(Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) The pros of rehabilitation are of course the fact that it is successfully most of the time and is beneficial to society when a person can go from being a criminal to being a productive member of society like a preacher or teacher. The cons are some people just don’t want to change so rehabilitating them is nearly impossible and even there are those that cannot be because they suffer from mental issues or enjoy committing crimes too much to want to change. (Stojkovic and Lovell
Specific Deterrence vs. General Deterrence: The purpose of punishing and threatening to punish civilians is to diminish or at least limit the frequency of societies’ criminal activity, in terms of deterrence. The wholly aim of deterrence is to obstruct an individual’s potential offense by means of insertion of fear. Specific deterrence solely applies to individuals who have been administered with some type of punishment, that ultimately render him/her with fear of being penalized again when he contemplates on offending in the future. On the other hand, general deterrence applies to the public at large. It refers to a general understanding and fear that certain unlawful behaviors will be followed upon by a punishment.
Where justice is putting a stop to the perpetrator for what they have done wrong. “Justice-as logically, legally and ethically defined-isn’t really about getting even or experiencing a spiteful joy in retaliation. Instead, it's about righting a wrong,” from Leon F.Seltzer’s “Don’t Confuse Revenge With Justice: Five Key Differences.” In other words, justice is not about getting back at anyone with retaliation but correcting a wrong to restore balance.
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
The judicial system is based off the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982). Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects
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
Sentencing is the imposition of a criminal sanction by a sentencing authority , such as a judge. Schmallger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 71) There are seven goals of sentencing including revenge, retribution, just deserts, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Revenge refers to a retaliation to some kind of assault and injury. Revenge can be a type of punishment for the criminal justice system. The jury, sometimes, basis there choices on emotions, facts and evidence. It is considered revenge in some cases because the victim's looks at it that way when they feel justice has been served. Retribution is a type of sentencing involving another form of retaliation. Retribution means "paying back" the offender for what he or she has done. ( Schmalleger & Smykla, 2009, pg# 73) The victim is not alone when it comes to being affected by the crime. Society is strongly affected by what a criminal does in whichever area he or she chooses. Retribution, in a good sense, would be if a coworker does her best as her job and her boss gave her a raise. This would be considered paying her back for her good deeds. As far as the criminal's heinous acts, retribution would more than likely be community service in the town were the crimes occurred. This form of sentencing gives a sort of relief to society
Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, 1962), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or wrongs. What ever the circumstances are being the individual who experiences a unjust act, results in the hunt for one of these two things: Justice or revenge. What are the key differences between the two? Justice can be defined as the concept of moral rightness, which is based on the rules of law, fairness, ethics, and equality among the governed citizens. Revenge, on the other hand, refers to an action taken by an individual as a response to an act of injustice. The principle of revenge is “an eye for an eye”…. Can revenge be justified and be as equally part of justice if they both seek retribution for a wrongdoing?
Rehabilitation also involves programs in prisons that have the goal of helping offenders return back to society (Goff, 2014, p.20). Prisons have also put in place programs to assist inmates, “the goal of these release programs are to ease the transition of offenders from the institution into the community while simultaneously promoting stable employment after release” (Cullen & Jonson, 2011, p.309). If a person has been in an institution for a long period of time it is often hard to adjust to life outside, which is why these programs are important in the justice
The “aim is utilitarian, that is, to prevent future crime by rehabilitating offenders or protecting the community, and thus, it takes a forward orientation to punishment.” (Daly, 2011, p.7). Deterrence is a theory developed by proponents who believe that this method dissuades criminal offenders from committing offences through fear of penalty or retribution. Punishment is a Theory of punishment which can be divided into two general viewpoints: utilitarian and retributive. The utilitarian theory punishes offenders to discourage them from committing offences while the retributive theory punishes offenders because they deserve to be punished. Punishments can range in severity from penalties (fines) to Imprisonment and in some places death. Rehabilitation is another utilitarian justification for punishment, the aim of rehabilitation is to avoid future crime by giving offenders the ability to rebuild there lives within the boundaries of the law. Rehabilitation methods for criminal offenders include treatment for conditions such as mental illness, addictions and violent behaviour. Protection is the theory that punishment should protect society from offenders and criminal activity for example community service protects the community from vandals and low risk offenders by taking away their time while capital
The programs, whether in the prison or out, are effective in saving the nation a huge amount in providing public safety and taxes (Pollock, 2004). Thesis statement Rehabilitation programs aimed at reducing recidivism are beneficial to the individual and the government. Research question: What are the roles played by rehabilitation programs in helping reduce recidivism? Different programs have diverse impact in reducing the rates of recidivism. Effective programs that help in reducing the rates of recidivism concentrate on three main problems that affect offenders in prison and after their release.
Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words, what they “justly deserve”. Where minor crimes should expect a minor punishment, those who commit more severe crimes should expect to be met with just as severe of a punishment in return. An example, some believe that when someone kills someone else, that person should then, in turn, receive the death penalty (depending on the state this would also be allowed or expected by law).
Retaliation and punishment are some of the core themes involved in researching acts of violence among ancient cultures. In these cultures the killing of a family member by an individual may result in either the killing of the original murderer or the killing of one of their family members in retaliation. Often, this is deemed as a justified reaction. Even today the punishing of someone due to wrongdoing is often believed to be justified. The existence of the death penalty in the United States is proof of such a mentality. Fiery Cushman a psychologist interested in comprehending the cognitive processes that lead to the development and creation of moral judgments believes that such a mentality is weak minded. Research by Cushman shows that he rejects the idea that such a mentality is correct and that the punishment of someone for acting wrongly should not be seen as justifiable. Cushman’s research compares belief, desire, causation, and consequence in identifying moral choices. Cushman’s research also seemed to conclude that choices and decisions on the wrongfulness of action tended to rely on the mental states of the individual. Yet, judgments of punishment tended to rely on painful consequence. Cushman’s overall conclusion based on the results of his research was that punishment due to wrongdoing should not be justified.
Retribution is something done or given to somebody as punishment or vengeance for something he or she has done. Those who side with retribution usually do not consider trying to improve a criminal in any way and attempting to make him or her an asset to society. Usually, their motto would be, “An eye for an eye.” An example of this would be a person raping a person’s daughter, so someone who knew they daughter reacting and going after the person or maybe even their daughter and raping them. Retribution is usually not carried out by the criminal justice system but by vengeance and society taking the law into their own hands. Several people do not believe that retribution is the most effective way to go about punishing criminals due to the fact that it sends out the wrong message to those around us.
After a convict pleaded guilty, the jurors and the judge will determine and give the decision what punishment the convict should get. They might sentence to prison for years, lifelong or death. The first major theory of the philosophy of punishment is retribution. In retribution, the convict would get the punishment that they deserved basic on what they did. But does Death Penalty fulfill the goal of retribution? In the article Death and Retribution, the author argued that the Death Penalty is a punishment, but it’s morally impermissible. The offenders have themselves consented the punishment is at least presumptively morally acceptable. Even the death penalty fulfill the goal of retribution, but it is not a good way to punish the offenders.
Deterrence means to punish somebody as an example and to create fear in other people for the punishment. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any sane person. Ernest van den Haag, in his article "On Deterrence and the Death Penalty" mentions, "One abstains from dangerous acts because of vague, inchoate, habitual and, above all, preconscious fears" (193). Everybody fears death, even animals. Most criminals would think twice if they knew their own lives were at stake. Although there is no statistical evidence that death penalty deters crime, but we have to agree that most of us fear death. Suppose there is no death penalty in a state and life imprisonment without parole is the maximum punishment. What is stopping a prisoner who is facing a life imprisonment without parole to commit another murder in the prison? According to Paul Van Slambrouck, " Assaults in prisons all over US, both against fellow inmates and against staff, have more than doubled in the past decade, according to statistics gathered by the Criminal Justice Institute in Middletown, Connecticut" (Christian Science Monitor, Internet).