The purpose of Punishment within the criminal justice system

The purpose of Punishment within the criminal justice system What role does punishment serve within the criminal justice system? Consider the part played by reductivism, incapacitation, retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation as by-products of the perceived need for the criminal justice system to punish offenders. How have political policies and other ideologies affected the state emphasis on the need to punish offenders? In the following paragraphs it is going to be explained the role of punishment within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, we are going to get involved with theories and objectives related to punishment such as: reductivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and finally retribution. Beginning our case study we have to argue that there is considerable controversy over the effectiveness of punishment in reducing crime, but whether or not its actual effectiveness, still is the only method being used conforming someone who made a misdeed, back to society and freedom. Punishment can be simply defined as a legally approved method designed to facilitate the task of crime control (Carrabine, 2004), and its main purpose is to rehabilitate the offender, expiate the victim and dissuade others from becoming wrongdoers. In order to successfully create a holistic view on the matter, we have to focus on many punishment perspectives and theories as it is the only way for a critical evaluation. punishment as a social institution is an inherently complex business that needs to be approached from a range of theoretical perspectives as no single interpretation will grasp the diverse meanings generated by punishment (Carrabine, 2004). The reductive theory of punishment justifies that punishment occurs because it helps to prevent and reduce future consequences of crime, acting as a forward-looking theory for the general good. Moreover, claims that if punishment takes place, future crime will be less than if no penalty were inflicted. For punishment to reduce future crimes, the pain and unhappiness caused to the offender must be outweighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other people in the future (Cavadino, 2002). Therefore, it is a moral action against criminals (famously advanced by Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832) since it produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Nevertheless, there are many mechanisms of reduction which will be shown below. Deterrence based on utilitarian theories, is a method of reduction and its main perspective is that if you cause someones fear, then he will be afraid to offend and break the law (tough on crime). Moreover, separates deterrence into general and individual justifying that general is when punishment dissuades others from following the offenders example, in spite of individual deterrence which aims to teach delinquent not to repeat the behaviour. Deterrence lacks to produce strong and validate evident of its effectiveness as no certain penalty prevented someone from committing a given crime. What is more, referring to the individual deterrence, my opinion is that we cannot say whether or not an offender stopped his criminal behaviour, simply because not all crimes are being convicted. Also, according to official crime statistics, I believe, there is not such effectiveness as Michael Howards supported about prison/punishment and toughness on crime. Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists- and it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice (Michael Howard, Home Secretary 1993). Rehabilitation is another mechanism of crime reduction which is going to be produced and evaluated on the following paragraphs. According to rehabilitation the idea of punishment is to apply treatment to the offender so that he is made capable afterwards to return back to the society as a law-abiding member. Rehabilitation is viewed as a humane alternative comparing to the harshness of retribution and deterrence giving more a programme function to the punishment, without that meaning that an offender would receive a more lenient penalty for his offence. An important feature of rehabilitation is that the offender could stay on probation whether that means outside prison or inside until he is thought to be ready. Critics though assume that if the prison administrator is the responsible one who decides if offender made a progress and he is ready to go, then corruption may occur which will falsify the true situation. Finally, another issue is that an offender guilty for minor crime proba bly could not tolerate lengthy detentions simple because of inability or refusal to adopt a subservient attitude toward prison officers and authority in general. Continuing our study we will refer to retributive theory which is in total antithesis of reductivism and justifies that punishment came as result of criminality. An attractive feature is that retributivism is a natural connection between the retributive approach and the idea that both offenders and victims have rights. Reductivist theory always founds it difficult to encompass the notion of rights, even when it comes to providing entirely innocent people with a right not to be punished. Retributivism has no such problem, since it follows automatically from the retributive principle that it must be wrong to punish non-offenders. Criminals, according to retributivist principle deserve the punishment because in some way, evil for evil somehow make a right. Additionally, according to retributivism, severity of a punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence (tariff). What is more, retributive punishment, argues that applies fairly and equally to all of us as long as we all live in the same equilibrium followed by the same norms and values. The main issue with such a theory is that it would be objective only if we were all genuinely equal sharing the same advantages. Detected offenders typically start from a position of social disadvantage (Cavadino, 2002). From the moment retributive punishment tries to inflict equality restoring the balance, then increases inequality rather than do the opposite. The last theory refers to the act of making the offender not capable of committing a crime and is known as the incapacitation theory. According to that, offenders who have committed repeated crimes or thought to be dangerous are being punished by execution or lengthy incarceration (life imprisonment). Such a punishment though unfortunately makes it difficult to identify that kind of offenders. Thus, it is extremely controversial the principle of incapacitation especially to those who assist that punishment should advocate equal retribution followed by dignity. An important controversial example evaluating incapacitation is the chemical-castration of sex offenders (against children) with hormonal drugs which was first adopted in the U.S of California in 1996 and proved that drugs alone did not make the offender incapable of committing sex crimes. To conclude, I would like to say that I have not come to a conclusion yet on whether or not punishment actually helps and rehabilitates the delinquents. But I am sure that punishment so far is the function which separates those who live legally and those who do not. I also believe that the fear of punishment changes people behaviour a lot, as we all are afraid of punishment is that not true? Ultimately, I would like to finish with Sir Thomas Mores opinion which finds me totally agreed. Society first creates thieves, and then punishes them for stealing. There has always existed a curiously symbolic relationship between the criminal and society. It is not so much that society tolerates crime, rather the structure of modern society inevitably creates situations and circumstances in which crime occurs(Weisser, 1979).

Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions Essay

Reflection Piece Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy. Although the lack of world government, most people agree that there is a body of norms and rules of conduct that generate international law. International law has generally examinated from two dissimilar positions. When power and interests clashes, skeptics see international law as a insignificant and nonexistent. Especially, the article of A. Claire Outler focuses on this problem. However,others have occasionally seen international law as a strong tool to organize and change the behaviour of states for the better. The main impotance or constraint of international law is the conflicting and generally uncertain provisions in international treaties and conventions. Also, legal system lacks the compulsory Juristiction and an adopted hierarchy because most powerful and developed countries ignore and try to run way the limitations of international law. I think that this situation clearly shows the weaknesses of international law. A influential legal code requires to reconcile itself to actual behaviour of individuals and states and not try to essentially remake them according to abstract moral principles. In general, realist are more suspicious about the issue of international law on the other hand,liberals and constructivist rely on it is, and should be, a crucial force shaping the behavior of states. To sum up, I think that this article was a very useful because it shows the negative and positive aspects of the issue clearly. However, some part of the article was a little bit biased about the validity of international law. It generally focuses on deficiencies of international law. I agree that there is lack of world government and international law hasn’t compulsory Jurisdiction but this doesn’t mean that international law is not real and necessary law.

Buddhism vs. Judaism Essay

Two of the most earliest religions are Buddhism and Judaism. Buddhism and Judaism were started in different years and places and also have different beliefs. Buddhism was started in 560 B.C.E, in Nepal by Siddhartha Gautama who later came to be known as the â€Å"Buddha†, or the â€Å"Awakened one.† Buddhism doesn’t believe in a God and are just followers of Siddhartha Gautama. Siddhartha got his followers from his father’s kingdom and later called the religion Buddhism. A growing number of schools of philosophy taught this new way of thinking. Buddha went around India spreading Buddhism and his followers followed his lead and spread the word of religion too. Buddhism is spread by word of mouth, personal contact with a person who practices the religion, not TV commercials, or newspaper ads, or the internet. Buddhism is a focuse on a philosophy of life. The word Buddha means The Enlightened One. In Buddhism they’re reborn from a previous life until they reach the state of nirvana which is the extinction of all desire and release from suffering. A person practicing the Buddhist religion is striving to bring forth his or her Buddha nature so that he or she will always be in that world. Once a person is Enlightened or a Buddha, then they strive to bring as many other people to that state as possible through whatever peaceful means they can with wisdom and forethought. Being enlightened is supposed to be a very peaceful state of mind to be in. Although persecutions can be great when a person becomes a Buddha because beginning a Buddhist practice is easy, but continuing is difficult. If you’re successfully practicing devils and demons will try to knock you off of your path, this is how you will know you’re practicing the religion correctly. On the other hand Judaism was started in 2000 B.C.E, led by Abraham in the Mesopotamian region. Judaism believed in a God named Yahweh and their holy book the Torah. The main difference is that Judaism is a strictly monotheistic faith meaning the belief in only one God.

The Great Awakening During The British Colonies - 2401 Words

The First Great Awakening in the British Colonies found its way across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe around 1730-1740s, and it had a profound impact on the course of the colonies, especially during the latter half of the Eighteenth Century, as they became independent from King George III’s tyranny. The Great Awakening was a movement rooted in spiritual growth in which it brought a new national identity that swept through the Puritans in Colonial America. Certain Puritans at time began to disassociate themselves with the established approach to worship which led to a general decline of church goers in the British Colonies, and during the Great Awakening many ministers adopted instead a New Light approach in which was characterized by great†¦show more content†¦Charles Chauncey became Jonathan Edward’s opponent and opposed the Great Awakening’s New Light ideals of revivalism and emotional sermons that he referred to as Enthusiasm, and became the defender of the old way of the Puritan ways of preaching and serving God. â€Å"His greatest contemporary fame came as a leading ‘’Old Light’’ opponent of the massive religious revivals that swept through the colonies in the late 1730s and early 1740s, a position in his mind motivated by an earnest desire to conserve the Puritan way from the â€Å"New Lights† dangerous engagement of excessive displays of emotions.† These excessive displays of emotions he explained that they were, â€Å"nothing better than Enthusiasts... [and] have no good reason to believe such a thing.† He believed that