Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
1446) and it also reinforces that the offender's actions are not taken seriously by the government. A retributive system for criminal punishment accomplishes the ideal of equal liberty under law (Markel, 2004). When an individual commits a crime, they not only assert superiority over their victim, but also claim superiority, however implied, over the government body and practice of legal liberty.
Acts of wrongdoing are paired with consequences -- it is this principle in which crime and punishment have been paired as means for justice. Retributive punishment for criminal behavior is rooted in the history of early civilizations as the sole deterrent of wrongdoing. In current American government, the use of "an eye for an eye" is limited to capital punishment and is believed by some to be a significant deterrent for homicide. The deterrence theory and incapacitation theory of punishment both fail at matching the punishment with the severity of the crime. The deterrence theory relies on the benefit-cost ratio of criminal behavior and attempts to balance the reward of a crime with its legal cost to deter wrongdoing. The incapacitation theory argues that criminal behavior is an innate characteristic, and these individuals should be removed from society based on criminal record and other behaviors to avoid future harm (Carlsmith, 2006). The deterrence theory is flawed as the cost of punishment is subjective to each individual and is not enough to prevent crime or reduce repeat offense. The incapacitation theory negates the rehabilitative effects of punishment, and assigns incarceration...
Using these factors to establish punishment for a crime allows for the retributive theory of punishment to remain a justificatory ideal, as it equates the severity of punishment with the moral severity of the crime. The socio-legal ideal of retribution sustains that every individual is responsible for their morality. Retribution prevents crimes from being punished with ambiguity and turned-cheeks. Retributive punishment represents a socio-legal enforcement of morality, and the threat of equal punishment for every crime will deter potential perpetrators and inhibit repeat offenders from chronic criminality.
References
Cahill, M. (2007). Retributive justice in the real world. Washington University Law Review, 85, 815-870.
Carlsmith, K. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451.
Golash, D. (2005). The case against punishment: retribution, crime prevention, and the law. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Markel, D. (2004). Against mercy. Minnesota Law Review, 88, 1421-1480.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). FBI releases 2010 crime statistics. Retrieved from website: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/summary
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
There should also be refresher courses given every year so that officers do not forget about their ethical responsibilities. It is important in the police arena that ethical behavior is top priority and that everyone is as ethical as they can be. Web Field Trip Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165043.pdf The article Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines is a very comprehensive guide to what intermediate sanctions
This may mean an expansion of white-collar task forces designed to investigate such crimes. Question Predictions are that terrorist will continue to commit heinous criminal acts against our citizens in the future. If this prediction comes true, what, if any, effects will this have on the corrections system. Will Criminal Justice Administrators need to rethink what "model" (more punitive or restorative model) of justice should be used if more and more
The subchapters tend to follow similar structures, with the punishment in each case being discussed at the very end. Chapter 10 refers to crimes against habitation, notably criminal acts such as burglary or arson. The conditions for a criminal act of this nature to occur are discussed, as well as the different statutes that regulate the legal framework for each of these situations and the punishments applicable. Important restrictions apply
The federal government along with several states introduced mandatory sentencing and life terms for habitual criminals often called three strikes laws, meaning that after three convictions you're out. They also restricted the use of probation, parole, and time off for good behavior (Prevention History of Corrections -- Punishment or Rehabilitation - Justice Model, 2010). The rapid increase in the 1990s in the number of people confined in prisons and jails