¶ … Philosophies of Punishment
Restorative justice is a philosophy of punishment which does not neatly fit into conventional categories of retribution or rehabilitation. Rather than focusing solely on the victim or the criminal, it attempts to restore or to rebuild what was lost, hopefully better than it was before through healing and rapprochement. A good example of a restorative act would be having a teen that scrawled anti-Semitic graffiti on a synagogue to clean up the building and attend pro-tolerance sensitivity training. Dialoguing between victim and victimizer is also a frequently-used component of restorative justice. Rather than simply pooling the resources of the criminal justice to improve the life of the offender, restorative justice promotes healing by asking the offender to give back to the community. However, the offender is not simply healed. The victim also benefits from the restorative process. The expenses of rehabilitation are at least partially defrayed by the contribution offered by the offender in the form of his time and effort. Psychological healing is meant to take place in a mutually advantageous fashion.
The philosophy of restorative justice is that "justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured; those most directly involved and affected by...
For more minor offenses, restorative justice can act as a deterrent by forcing the criminal to face the person he victimized and to realize that his actions have consequences. But even for more serious crimes, restorative justice can have psychologically healing effects. Restorative justice "considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned -- the victims, the offender and the community -- on making amends. And it allows victims, who often feel shut out of the prosecutorial process, a way to be heard and participate" (Tullis 2013). Restorative justice has been used around the world to mediate between different sides of a civil war or after a country (such as South Africa) must come to terms with its violent history and move on (Tullis 2013). It has also been used to help the families of victims of violent crimes and the parents of the persons who committed the crime. It is more effective than rehabilitation…
Crime Punishment Philosophy Since the beginning of the 70s, the number of people inducted in jails and state facilities has increased to an astonishing level. In the present, more than two million individuals are serving jail time in either jails or state prisons. The growth of crime rate and imprisonment can be greatly attributed to the African-American and Hispanic communities residing in the U.S., who still categorize as the poor communities
Philosophy Crime Punishment Shifted Social Context and the Justification of Punishment Punishment is an authoritative exercise aimed to impose a negative or unwanted response to a behavior considered wrong or unjust by an individual or group. Philosophies surrounding crime and their punishment have changed between centuries, and even decades, to reflect the societies in which they occur. The legal mandate of punishment enforces a source of pain or deprivation to place
But an open system of prevention could be the alternative. It would subject the court or legislature to closer and public scrutiny (Robinson). President Lyndon Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice was viewed as the single and most influential postwar American criminal justice policy (Coles and Kelling 1999). Its wisdom, contained the policy's main report, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, published in 1967, swiftly
On the other hand, cardinal proportionality supports maintenance of a realistic proportion amid all levels of punitiveness and criminal conduct gravity. While ordinal extent is scaled with respect to principles of desert, putting crime in comparison with punishment with a variety of punishments already set through cardinal limits determination, cardinal extent cannot be fixed in the similar manner. Given that there are no natural proportions amid punishment and crime,
I maintain that all living things share an understanding that actions have consequence. I believe that even complex underlying psychological and sociological issues can be circumvented by directly addressing such most fundamental knowledge. As for deterrence, I believe that the retributive system can in itself serve as a future deterrent, even if it does not do so intentionally. As mentioned, Kant held that any criminal activity is not only a
Punishment "Anything goes" is an interesting way to describe the current state of the nation's approach to punishment. Do you feel it is accurate? If yes, why? If not, why not? What other aspects of our nation's current approach to sanctions -- besides those listed and discussed by Blomberg and Lucken -- do you feel bolsters your position? I do not feel that the "Anything goes" penal strategy is accurate for the