Why We Punish & Different Ways Criminals are Punished Why does the criminal justice system of America punish criminals? The answer lies in the words “justice.” The term justice can be interpreted in many ways. Criminals are punished to: make people abide the laws of their country and state, put an end to illegal activity that could be harmful to themselves or the community, protect the public from evil, prevent crime from rising in certain areas. These are just some of the reasons why criminals are punished. There are also different approaches to punishing criminals such as: sentences that fit the crime, community service, the death penalty, and rehabilitation.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
Whereas a serial killer, a person who kills people for his/her interests, deserves a death penalty as a punishment towards the committed crimes. In many countries such as Pakistan and India, people are given death penalty for murdering or robbing sometimes due to corruption of police force which is unfair the criminal as he/she should be given life imprisonment or parole for such crimes. If action may not be taken many people would turn against the government or accuse the laws and would see the negative aspects of capital punishments. Giving punishment would assure the victim or other people by showing justice and that it’s being discouraged while shows the victim that everyone disapproves the act of the
In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of crime. Through Raskolnikov’s ability to rationalize murder and evil, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of what a crime is. By depicting Raskolnikov in a way that he rationalizes his acts, it can be understood that the concept of crime is dependent on the situation and the outcome. With this, one can question whether crime will remain as a crime even if it results in the benefit of the majority of the population. In this paper, I will be arguing the concept of what crime is through the situations and the outcomes shown in Crime and Punishment, with the help of true to life crimes.
On April 16th, 2007, America was aghast by one of the massive school shootings to date. Seung Hui Cho, described as “angry and disturbed”, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others. As a little boy, Cho was bullied and diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and major depression disorder. After the shooting, Virginian governor Tim Kaine gather together numerous officials and experts to investigate and determine what Cho’s objective was. The final report contained more than 30 pages about Cho’s mental history.
¨We reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers.” I can see why the Supreme Court doesn 't want these people in prison, because they might kill somebody in prison, or if they get bailed out they wouldn 't learn their lesson and do what they were doing AGAIN. ¨We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but only to the degree they deserve it.¨ I can also see why they think people deserve it for their horrible actions, they believe that since they did some outrageous murder, or a really bad crime they deserve to die. ¨"Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing most people will never know is the pain experienced when a family member, or in my case, family members are brutally tortured and murdered.¨ This is saying that families go through a lot when a murderer kills one of their loved ones, and the family wants that person executed. Personally, the death penalty in my eyes can help families feel like they 've got justice, and make them feel like they did something for the loved one that was
In the U.S., retribution stands as the most accepted rationale for punishment. In this case, X can be punished using both utilitarian and retribution ideals. For example, the accused X killed a student was seen as innocent. In order to quench the anger of the locals and friends of L, there will be need for X to be sentenced to a juvenile prison while at the same time undergo rehabilitation inside the prisons.
Gafgen told the officer that he had killed the boy and then disclosed the location of the body. The kidnapper was prosecuted and sentenced to life imprisonment; however the officer ‘was also prosecuted and convicted of violating the kidnappers rights’ (Sandel, 2011). This presents an interesting moral dilemma, can torture ever be justified? And was the officer acting in a morally respectable way? In this essay I will answer these questions by analysing the arguments which justify or condemn his actions, from both the utilitarian and deontological perspectives.
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.
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
"Honest Abe" is not all that Americans think. Sources state that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because of the money he printed debt-free ("Whiteout Press"). But the real reason John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln was because Lincoln suspended writ of habeas corpus, arrested people that spoke out against him and oversaw concentration two camps. Abraham Lincoln 's assassination is directly correlated to him being a war criminal ("Southern Sentinel"). Firstly, Abraham Lincoln suspended writ of habeas corpus (any state that orders your arrest must justify your imprisonment before a judge) ("ListVerse").
The role of the government is to keep everyone and everything in line. The government should have a sentencing reform because with the system we have now it 's just making things worse. Some people are being placed in jail because of their color when there are real criminals that are set free when they really did do something wrong like murdering someone. The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse. To begin with, The government should have a sentencing reform because the system now is just making things worse.