Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking. We do not punish a criminal for what they will do tomorrow, but for what they have already done. Retributivist finds consequences irrelevant. Retributivist want to know what someone deserves by looking back the act one has
Another factor to consider is that not all crimes result in the immediate arrest and conviction with the guarantee of apprehension; therefore, the overall deterrence effect becomes reduced. A scholar in crime and punishment, Michael Tory states, “At the very least, macro-level research on deterrent effects should test the null hypothesis of no effect rather than the price theory assumption that offenders’ behaviours will change in response to changes in legal threats” (3). Tough on crime policies and an increased severity on punishment will not advocate for the desired deterrence affects. Instead, our current criminal justice system seems to actively ignore the failing legislatures and laws that feed into increased recidivism rates. Yes,
Sentencing teenagers to life without the possibility of parole goes against human rights and the eight amendments by making the punishment cruel and unjust, because teenagers are not adults. Their immaturity, lack of responsibility, impulsive reactions, and brain plasticity make them vulnerable. Committing a heinous crime should not lead them to life without parole, rather to restoration. Their plasticity makes them perfect candidates for rehabilitation and the legal system should put these factors into account, because it is up to them to protect and execute the right justice for
Crime would be uncontrollable as never before if there wasn’t some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison is an effective deterrent, but with some people more is needed, prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. If criminals realize that committing a serious crime that will take them to the gallows, they are bound to think twice before acting. The crime rate in countries where this form of punishment exists is far less compared to other countries where it has been abolished. People may argue and claim there is no “evidence” to suggest that it acts as a deterrent , but then there is no “evidence” to suggest that it doesn't act as a deterrent either.
Also, this punishment will also be a deterrent and set the precedent for others to see and understand the implications of violence. On the flip side with a resounding “No” answer, the court sees and focuses on the intellect and moral capacity of said juvenile. Laws are in place to protect the vulnerability and the lack of moral
Having individuals locked up and hidden from society is not the right way to go about punishment. Instead the correctional system should guide and mentor those convicted and should help alter their behavior so that they are more suitable to live in society. Sentencing someone to prison without giving them the tools to correct the behavior that was problematic in the first place actually defeats the purpose of the punishment because the individual will likely repeat the same offense over
Over the last 40 years, we have spent trillions of dollars on the failed and ineffective War on Drugs (Aclu). Drug use has not declined and drug markets are become more resilient to the mass incarceration of drug offenders. There is always another drug dealer standing by, ready to replace the one who has been sent to prison. Along with the War on Drugs, the changes in sentencing policies contributed to higher levels of incarceration at both the state and federal levels. Mandatory minimum sentences were established as the response to complaints from politicians and the public that offenders weren’t serving long enough terms for their convictions.
In “On Punishment and Teen Killers”, by Jennifer Jenkins, she reveals how she was a victim of a teen murderer and believes that actual science supporting teenage brains does not negate criminal culpability. She argues, “If brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world”, (Par 6). Jenkins believes that supporting evidence on teenage brains does not serve as an excuse to not sentence juveniles to life without parole. She also believes that some teens will never change and find redemption for their actions. Her point is valid in that juveniles cannot be excused for their crimes, however Jenkins lacks the insight that much like how the brain changes through age, a teenager can transition from immaturity to maturity.
There are numerous things in this society which ought to be banned however the death penalty is not one of them. It is most likely the right approach to go the extent that capital order is concerned. At this moment in our nation, I think that it crazy that criminals believe that they can escape with pretty much anything. My argument for this essay is that death penalty is a resource for society; it discourages potential criminals and also serves retaliation to criminals, and is not the slightest bit indecent. The death penalty can be a greatly valuable device in sentencing criminals that have perpetrated a portion of the most exceedingly terrible crimes known to society.
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.
The main purpose for our criminal justice system should be to stop future crime. General deterrence would be a good way to set an example to communities who disobey the law. Allowing bystanders to see the punishments of crime will instill fear into them, causing them not to repeat the crime they witness. Specific deterrence allows for criminals to still be in society, but every time they think about doing something illegal they will have a negative feeling. These method focusses on educative function allowing people to learn from their mistakes and preventing further complications.
Informed policy needs to be created so the appropriate steps can be made to move from our current system of mass incarceration to a system that effectively rehabilitees offenders which results in lower crime rates. After all our criminal justice system was not established solely to incapacitate offenders, it should also aid in reducing recidivism. Rehabilitation, alternative sentencing, and mental health all used to be crucial components of the criminal justice system. Then our society saw a massive decrease in mental health facilities as well as a perceived increase in crime. Crime was perceived to have increased due to politicians and the federal government preying on society’s fear of crime to further their political campaigns and agendas.
Public shaming is an alternative to incarceration because it is an act of specific deterrence, in that an individual would be deterred from committing the crime again due to being humiliated. Home confinement and electronic monitoring are another possible alternative to incarceration. Home confinement reduces the cost of housing the specific individual in state and federal prisons. Electronic monitoring would allow the offenders to work while they serve out their time which again, would reduce the prison populations. Boot camps are another option for alternatives to incarceration.
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). Specific deterrence, focuses on the offence committed by the individual offender. It aims to deter the offender from future prohibited behavior (Clear et al., 2006). Sarre argues that it is unlikely that people choose their actions before committing a criminal offence (2007). Preventative measures are seen as more effective than punishment (Stinchcomb, 2011).