Jean Hampton's Moral Education Theory Of Punishment Analysis

This is a model that allows people to get what they deserve, however it is lead by restraint. Restraint allows for a delay in order to deliberate and decide on a punishment that fits the crime nicely rather than being over or under sized. By allowing an outside source to view the case, the goal is that both sides points are understood and taken into account. Questions are asked such as what is enough? How far is too far? How can one know what another is deserving of. Important to the success of this model is the impartiality of the one judging. As Athena says in The Furies, “Prejudice is slander to the innocent, and justice should always be impartial.” (Aeschylus 134)

Punishments for crime and bad behavior have been seen in different ways with some thinking we should be lenient and not give criminals hard times, while others thought that a more severe, brutal punishments to truly emphasis right from wrong. The articles “Time to Assert American Values” by an editor from The New York Times and “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishments” by Alejandro Reyes both describe the trial of a teenage boy from the United States who was caught vandalizing in Singapore. Both authors of the articles examine in great detail, the punishments that the young boy should receive for his crime with both articles contradicting each other. After carefully analyzing

justice model, the crime control model, and the balanced and restorative justice model. The Parens

There are many debates on how to punish offenders and how to stop them re-offending. Retribution Theorists believe in the old fashion way of punishment, an ‘eye for an eye’ and that the suffering of the victim should determine the level of punishment, for example if a victim is brutally murdered, the offender should pay the price and suffer from a range of punishments themselves. Therefore the punishments differ to the seriousness to the crime, from theft to murder, minor to serious punishments occur. Whereas a reductivist approach believes that we punish offenders to help them change for the better which would be to rehabilitate them for example. (Cavadino 2013) states that the rehabilitation programs might “facilitate change” rather than

When the American prison system began, it was believed that rehabilitation, the act of restoring one’s character, could be beneficial for criminals to start over. According to Tom Wicker, “The system…began as a reform impulse, the idea that if offenders were isolated, shielded from the public mockery that had accompanied hangings and the stocks, given time to repent, and worked hard, they could be turned away from crime and transformed into useful citizens” (xii). Criminals could become better citizens and have a positive outlook for a future if they worked hard and were secluded from the outside world. Although this idea seems more humane, it did not last long in the prison system because many people believed that any crime committed deserved

Death Penalty is a very ominous punishment to discuss. It is probably the most controversial and feared form of punishment in the United States. Many are unaware, but 31 of the 52 states have the Death penalty passes as an acceptable punishment. In the following essay, I will agree and support Stephen Nathanson's statement that "Equality retributivism cannot justify the death penalty." In the reading, "An Eye for an Eye?", Nathanson gives objections to why equality retributivism is morally acceptable for the death penalty to be legal. The first objection is that the death penalty does not "provide a measure of moral desert" (Nathanson). For the second, Nathanson states "it does not provide an adequate criterion for determining appropriate levels of punishment." The main objection is an "eye for an eye", or Lex talionis, and I believe it fails to support equality retributivism and creates punishments that are morally unacceptable. There is no way that

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30). This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration.

Thesis Statement : Capital Punishment is a very controversial topic around the globe. I believe that it does more harm than good and breeds violence in society.

The theories of Restorative Justice and Utilitarianism seem to have much in common. Both aim to reach a virtuous response to crime, and therefore they are positive and forward looking. Utilitarians argue that punishing offenders crimes are likely to be reduced. Jeremy Bentham identified two objectives for punishment that share the same idea. Specific deterrence and general deterrence purpose are to increase the "price" for a criminal act in order to discourage potential offenders from choosing to commit crimes.

"BLOODY BENDERS: MASS MURDERERS OF KANSAS." BLOODY BENDERS: MASS MURDERERS OF KANSAS. Troy Taylor, 2004. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be

The extent that I see justice practices meeting the philosophical goals of the juvenile justice system has moved toward a retributive justice philosophy that gives punishment priority. The juvenile justice systems new approach is more of a balanced approach with a philosophical framework. The balanced and restorative approach provides a significant change in toles and image of the juvenile justice system from a revolving door to a resource. The resource makes juvenile offenders accountable and enhances the quality of life within communities by community restoration using preventive services to help improve the safety of the community.

The first theory I will be explaining is Rational Choice Theory. Cornish and Clarke argue that “offenders are rational people who seek to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain.” (Cullen, 2015 pg. 438)

The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the offenders, instead of punishing the offenders this approach focuses on repairing and treating the dysfunctional areas that the offenders are experiencing by means of behavioral therapy and other therapeutic programmes. The disadvantage of this approach is the fact that it does not focus on the victim instead it justifies the offender’s actions by regarding them as patients and victims of dysfunctional societies

There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation. In addition,