Punishment \"Anything Goes\" Is an Interesting Way

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 nation's approach punishment. It is not a perfect way of ensuring that there is justification especially after punishment. The main aim of punishment in the society is to promote justification, which will then lead to harmony within the people. However, the "anything goes" penal strategy involves the prisoners undergoing any type of punishment as regarded by the states (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). The option of the punishment does not always involve the input of the citizens and other practitioners. This implies that the inmates would have to incline to the punishment regardless of whether they recognize it or not. I suppose that this strategy would promote hostility rather than promoting harmony because of the harsh ways of dealing with the inmates. The other aspect of approach, which supports my position, is retribution and vengeance justice. Retribution and vengeance involves the weighing of wrongdoing before administering the punishment. Weighing of wrongdoing is significant since it helps in ensuring that the punishment is proportionate to the crime thereby leading to just decision in the courts.

What is your reaction to restorative justice and its undergirding theoretical framework (i.e., reintegrative shaming)? What is the most interesting aspect of it? Do you think the U.S. should adopt "restorative corrections"? If yes, what would it look like? If not, why not?

The main aim of the restorative justice is to ensure that its subjects are happier and have a good relationship among them. I suppose that presence of restorative justice ensures that there is a better relationship while also helping in functioning of an organization since it involves participation and decision-making among the conflicting individuals. I also think that the reintergrative shaming forms critical part in regulating human behaviors as associated with the restorative justice. The reintergrative shaming ensures that there is better relationship through the view that anything that the interrupts the good state of things always result to shame (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). Consequently, the presence of restorative justices ensures that individuals are able to yield shame, after any happening, besides their emotions thereby helping to reduce the magnitude of the emotions. The interesting part of the restorative justice is that instead of shame acting as a factor of yielding enmity between people, it helps in restoring a good relationship. An individual would always expect an offended individual to develop shame and go on withdrawing self. Yes, I suppose the U.S. should adopt this concept, as it is a polite way of settling disputes within organizations and people. Its adoption will result in relational community whereby when a conflict arises there would be need for a restorative dialogue or a restorative conference. This means that the individuals involved in conflicts would always come in touch with each other. The closer touch between the individuals is always a factor towards ensuring that the individual develop a better relationship after the real conflict solving.

Blomberg and Lucken feel that future of punishments should be decided by a partnership between citizens, criminologists, legislators, policy makers, and practitioners. What would it take to make this partnership work? Is there a philosophy on punishment that you fee would support such a partnership? Explain your choice.