The four basic philosophical reasons for sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Retribution philosophy is defined as a philosophical that those who commit criminal acts should be punished based on the severity of the crime and that no other factors are to be considered during sentencing. Deterrence philosophy reason for sentencing is defined as a philosophy that crime can be prevented through the threat of punishment. Incapacitation philosophy is defined as a philosophy that crime can be prevented by detaining wrongdoers in prison thereby separating them from the community and reducing criminal opportunities. Finally rehabilitation philosophy is defined as the philosophy that society is best served when offenders are provided the resources to get rid of criminal activity from their daily behavior patterns. Retribution just holds the severity of the crime against the guilty and is aimed at pleasing the society as whole party rather than just the victim/s. Deterrence uses other criminals as examples for the community to be discouraged from crime. There are two types of deterrence, general deterrence is punishing one person that has committed a crime,
Locke repeats himself often in his arguments. He refers to his belief of natural reason and God’s words to deliver his theory of private property. He begins his discussion of property in the state of nature (Locke 6 sect. 25). Locke’s state of nature demonstrates a state which entails perfect freedom and the right to one’s own actions and possessions (Locke 2 sect. 4). He then
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke revealed his interests in new science, developing theories of education and knowledge (SMW, 34). One of the main points in his Treatise is that of the law of nature, where all men are in natural state of perfect freedom (SMW, 34). Locke argues, “Men being…by nature all free, equal, and independent,
John Locke (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) is a English philosopher and physician regarded as one of the most influential of the Enlightenment thinkers and known as the "Father of Classical Liberalism”. Locke got a scholarship to Oxford University where he spent 30 years at Oxford, studying, tutoring, and writing. He wrote influential political science and philosophy. Locke 's famous theory had to do with the Social Contract theory. The Social Contract covers the origin of government and how much authority a state should have over an individual. In the Two Treatises of Government (1689), he defended the claim that men are naturally free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. With both biblical and philosophical justifications, Locke argued in defense of constitutionalism. He believed God gave Adam natural rights like; life, liberty, and property in the book of Genesis and Adam passed it on to the rest of
The state of nature is the state in which man first existed. The right to property consists of whether individuals have a defensible right to a certain form of property, whether it be wealth, objects, or land. Social inequality consists of inequality between citizens in political society resulting from differences in property. All references to inequality herein are to social inequality, not to any other type. Finally, for the purpose of brevity, all references to governments are references to governments formed by the consent of the governed unless separately denoted. Before commenting on Locke and Rousseau’s policies, one must examine their basis for property, inequality, and
Punishment is an infliction of a penalty that resulted from an offence. Punishment is also naturally justified when administered to those who deserve it. Retributivists claim that people who break the law deserve the punishment they get. Retributivism views punishment as a fair judgment and believe that the state should punish those who are found guilty of their wrongdoing because they deserve it. A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded.
“Retribution” or “Retributive justice” can be defined as “a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2016)
When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism.
Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.
Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. To Locke, persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful. The State of Nature therefore, is not the same as the state of war. It can, however devolve into a state of war, in particular, a state of war over property disputes. Whereas the State of Nature is the state of liberty where persons recognize the Law of Nature and therefore do not harm one
John Locke views civil society—a group that is under the authority of an exclusive leader who is in charge of protecting their welfare through legislation—as a crucial repellant to absolute monarchy as well as vital to protecting an individual’s property, because its origin which is the paternal model where an individual gives up certain rights in return for protection from an executive. In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke pushes the idea that God did not intend for a man to be alone, but to have the option of joining a society amongst other men. Continuing with this notion, he explains the origins of the civil society through the paternal model which he considers as the beginning of society of people coming together under one man.
The American Revolutionary War came about after decades of grievances on the part of the American colonies, grievances which were put in place by the British Parliamentary system. The lack of American representation in parliament paired with the multitudes of acts designed to take advantage of the colonies were cause enough for the colonies to revolt and to overthrow their government. There are few who would disagree with the American’s justification for the revolution, would Locke be one of them? No he would not, the American colonies were fully justified under Lockean reasons for revolution, considering how long they endured the grievances and the legislature that was passed against them.
New England was fed up with the Church of England and the Puritans wanted to recreate their own religion which they thought was more what God had believed was the intended belief. They both decided that neither of them like the way England was set up and said that England was no good for their beliefs. They planned to leave England and go to the new world to set up a life where their children had the chance to be raised in a perfect society with no corruption. Concentrated on town life and industries, they made a living off of fishing, whaling and shipbuilding. Whale oil was key because it made their lamps. Farming was useful for crops like wheat but corn, pumpkin and beans were planted because they were able to grow in the poor soil they had.
When examining a core concept in an argument, it is important to inquire to whether its treatment is adequate. Is either definition of liberty sufficient, and does either author’s envisioned government adequately address liberty in that system? This paper will argue that Locke’s definition of liberty remains in the literal sphere while Tocqueville’s is more conceptual, but neither Locke’s nor Tocqueville’s
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature. This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today.