Most of the time this results in prison sentencing. But when the only action is to lock people up, it doesn’t require that the individual act in a certain way, or change. Instead, it excuses the offender from answering for what they have done or punishes them in a way that does not consider the individual criminal and his or her crimes on others and such crimes impact on the overall community. Restorative justice is a victim-led process to hold offenders accountable while concurrently fulfilling the needs of all parties involved (Keenan and Joyce, 2013). This essay will critically evaluate the guiding principles of restorative justice, and more specifically look at the benefits of applying this method to sexual violence and domestic violence cases; this will be done by examining common procedures and guidelines, understanding the strengths and weaknesses, and observing specific case
‘’The principle of manipulability refers to the predictable ways in which people act out of rational self-interest and might therefore be dissuaded from committing crimes if the punishment outweighs the benefits of the crime, rendering the crime an illogical choice.’’(http://www.biography.com/people/cesare-beccaria-39630) Beccaria believed that the criminal justice system needed to be changed, he thought the present criminal justice system was ‘barbaric and antiquated’. Beccaria also believed that certain laws should be changed and who they should benefit. He believed the system should establish the appropriate punishment for each crime committed. Unlike many of the other theories ‘’On Crime and Punishment’’ wanted to help and protect the rights of the criminals as well as the rights of the victims, he believes that punishment of the criminals should be that which serves the greatest public good. Beccaria also put forward in his theories the first modern argument against the death penalty.
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
That is to say that the judge hopes the severity of the sentence will deter Mr Austin from offending again and serve as an example of the possible punishments for a crime of this severity to the rest of the public. When deciding the sentence the judge took into account the guilty plea entered by the accused, the impact of the crime on the victim and his family, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the criminal history of the
The question “Is Hester Prynne guilty?” has been up in the air. Hester has committed a crime, sinned to her Puritan religion, and refused to state the identity of the father of her daughter. Hester is without a doubt guilty for all the reasons stated above. Hester and her husband married in the Puritan religion. She then sinned by committing adultery.
The novel scarlet letter was written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. He wanted to expose the immorality that was committed by two parents of a daughter called Pearl. Nathaniel's novel explores the hypocrisy in puritan societies. The novel tells a story of Hester Prynne and her daughter. Hester having committed adultery and tries all what she can so as to ensure that she live of repentance and dignity.
The breaking of these ‘small’ laws is not to be taken lightly by justice and should have its consequences. Not to show whoever committed the crime to being a true criminal, but to prevent the worst outcome from what is considered ‘a small
But are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind’ “ (Bomboy). In other words, Livermore was arguing that all citizens who commit horrible crime do deserve severe punishments for the crimes that they commit, and until the government figures out a way to place restrictions and guidelines on the penalties that we believe are morally proper to give, then they cannot hold back from reprimanding those citizens. Consequently, The Founding Fathers created the Eighth Amendment to be intended for further generations to interpret the meaning of “cruel” and “unusual” over time (Donnell). The amendment was then ratified in 1791 nevertheless, the Eighth Amendment and the death penalty is still highly debated today because the differences in interpretations
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.
Other people consider death penalty as a effective way to prevent revenge by those criminals and threaten other offenders in order to keep the order of society. From my point of view, there’s no absolute right or wrong to judge one thing and we can only get a justified conclusion from comparing the opposite two sides. Before debating the two sides, I would like to use the information from The State of Arizona Office of the Attorney General to introduce the
They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone. I do think they are necessary because like I said for those who only commit small crimes it is easier for them to go through probation or house arrest instead of throwing a potentially nonviolent offender into a jail where they can become a violent offender. I think economically it is a good idea as well as socially to have the plea bargain. If benefits the community and judicial system because it prevents overcrowding and changing a person into something worse than they were as well as makes the process go a lot faster so that the criminal can be dealt with so other things that need to be addressed can be addressed. I would not change the plea bargain; I think that it is a good idea in most case scenarios for those who have committed small crimes because those with big crimes are still going to be dealt with in a harsher
Within incapacitation, the general population may be deterred when this theory is implemented being that it imprisons offenders by physically removing them from the society when a criminal offense is committed. This punishment could possibly deter individuals because if someone knows they will be imprisoned for a crime that they’ve committed then that could possibly be deterred away from that crime. For those who are not affected and continue to reoffend, to deter them just desert or retribution should be applied. The implementation of what we know today as “an eye for an eye” could help decrease the recidivism rate. Deterrence can be gained through just desert/retribution; individuals may be deterred after if our correctional system takes on a just desert mindset of for “stubborn offenders”.
I have also come to the conclusion that if a criminal justice professional decides not to follow the ethical guidelines then performing their task could be problematic. I do believe that the decisions made by criminal justice professionals are more ethical than unethical. The ethical decision making of professionals does have a major impact on society. For instance, if law enforcement had to make the decision to put a mentally ill person to rest if the person is a threat or harm to others or law enforcement. I do believe that this would be the right thing to do because the person could have harmed someone or an officer of the law.
Hate incidents do not become hate crimes until they directly instigate perpetrators to commit violent acts against someone’s property, or when they physically injure the victim. That means that hateful speeches, or other disrespectful and unjust behavior that might have been motivated by bias, are not illegal. Although hate crimes and hate incidents are different they both need to be taken care of because they both create a community-wide disturbance. They should be dealt with by law enforcement and not taken into the hands of the community. When dealt with by law enforcement it helps stabilize the community some while also aiding in the victim or victims recovery process.