Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.
As long as people have existed, they have wronged one another. They find different ways to harm others. Those who have been wronged tend to seek revenge no matter the situation. They feel as though they must revenge. Because humans almost always seek revenge, William Shakespeare’s statement, “If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” holds significant truth.
The judges, prosecutors or any mediator take into account the behavior of the offender. If the offender behaves in a positive manner his punishment is likely to get reduced or dismissed. A positive behavior accounts to the recognition of harm suffered by the victim and further an attempt to “repair” all the damages suffered by the victim. This mediation takes place before a formal punishment is given out to the offender. 1.2 What are the advantages of Victim Offender Mediation for the victim?
In addition to that, punishment against a wrong doer is done so that the rights of both society and offender remain protected. Another theory that can be used for rationale of punishment is denunciation. In this theory, punishment expresses the condemnation the society has put on the criminal. In other words, this theory is a combination of the retributive and utilitarianism. In the U.S., retribution stands as the most accepted rationale for punishment.
Wiesel’s speech shows how he worked to keep the memory of those people alive because he knows that people will continue to be guilty, to be accomplices if they forget. Furthermore, Wiesel knows that keeping the memory of those poor, innocent will avoid the repetition of the atrocity done in the future. The stories and experiences of Wiesel allowed for people to see the true horrors of what occurs when people who keep silence become “accomplices” of those who inflict pain towards humans. To conclude, Wiesel chose to use parallelism in his speech to emphasize the fault people had for keeping silence and allowing the torture of innocent
I analyze these law based on the indications-the apply/benefit group of people, the fairness of the law, the practice of the law. This code had significant contribution to the human history because it form the primitive legal system in the society. Though some people regard it as the governors’ weapons, it indeed contributes to the human development. One of the law stated that: If a man accused another for lying a death pulls upon him, but he has not proved it, he shall be put into death. This law is aim to punish the man who intended to harm the innocent people.
Hypocrisy is one of the worst moral crimes someone can commit. Benjamin Banneker's letter to Thomas Jefferson explains that he has committed this crime. He has gone back on his morale of everyone having unalienable rights by letting slavery continue to happen, and Banneker believes he is the prime contender in allowing this crime to happen and that he should be the start and make the move to stop slavery. Banneker explains this to Jefferson in such a way that the letter is both respectful and thoughtful while also being rude due to the use of how he phrases his sentences, that his argument can not be questioned because of his use of ‘Sir’ to show his respect, and his ardent choice of words which are all collectively used to explain how Jefferson is being hypocritical and show him why he should fix this.
He says "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death. "He said that Pi has commited a crime and so should be punished. He concluded assertions are, of course, ahead of any duties that he had to discharge with relation to this case, but he implicated them in the case saying that Foster is still unaware of dangers implicit in the conceptions of the judicial office advocated. He concluded that the conviction should be affirmed. HANDY,
Restorative justice can be defined as a flexible and just approach by which apt reparation is made, for the harm committed, irrespective of the life situations, through a proper communication in adequate perspectives, between the victim and the offender, thereby preventing recidivism and re-establishing peace and harmony to the ultimate benefit of the society. In this particular context, we focus on the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice views crimes not only as a violation of laws but also as harm to the society and community. The core objective of restorative justice system is the safe and satisfied involvement of the victims who agreed to be involved in the process. The goals behind the design of this system include making offenders
(Young, 1981). Classicism Enhancing informational knowledge is the purpose of its punishment, which allows people to conduct rational decision. Therefore, the proportional penalty is suggested to launch when they devoted violation that harms the society, which promoted equality that offenders need to be aware of. Positivism Positivist focused on the background of the criminal, who believed people committed crime because of the environment influence. Treatment is a preferable than punishment to offenders(Young, 1981).
“One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I summit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law” (King 431). King explains how even though laws are in place for the safety of the people, it does not mean they are always fair, and sometimes in order uphold what is right one must break the law to show society how unreasonable a law may be (431). Those who thought King’s methods were unlawful were wrong, King did break the law, but he did so in a manner that showed he still respected law and order. King was not a criminal for standing up for what he believed is justice, instead he was honorable for trying to show the world how discriminatory the law really
After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated.
The traditional goals of sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (Stinchcomb, 2011). A more contemporary goal of criminal sanctions is restorative and community justice (Stinchcomb, 2011). Retribution is founded on the principle that offenders should receive their ‘just desserts’. However, the penalty must be proportionate to the offence committed (Welch, 2004, p.83) Deterrence aims to reduce criminal offending. General deterrence is based on the philosophy that the general public will be deterred by the penalty, as it outweighs the benefits of crime (Sarre, 2007).