Reductivist View Of Punishment

1160 Words5 Pages
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…show more content…
The question is, who actually determines what punishment is deserved and what isn’t? I assure that there is some way how to determine how much punishment is deserved and that goes into further detail, but instead of figuring out what punishment individuals should serve for their crimes committed, they could be rehabilitating criminals who need their help, which would be a reductivist point of view. Although retributivists believe people should be punished for the crimes they have committed, the concept named ‘just deserts’ was introduced to represent the idea of a “fair and appropriate punishment related to the severity of the crime that was committed” which comes under the harsher side of punishment. It also argues that the most severe offence committed, the equal amount of punishment will be taken upon that criminal. This type of punishment is seen as “morally justified” and if the harm it prevents to the criminal is greater than the harm inflicted upon the victim it is seen as “rational, fair and just”. Similarly, if you were to deter individuals from committing future crimes, it demonstrates to the offender that breaking the law results in more pain rather than…show more content…
While I find both views on punishment convincing and effective in different ways, I believe that the reductivist approach to punishment is and will be the most effective to decrease levels of crime in society. People with alcohol, drug and mental health issues should be rehabilitated and should be taught right from wrong while in incapacitation, to protect the public from the particular offender until they do reform. While retributivism focuses on harming offenders to ‘teach them a lesson’, it will never have a positive effect as they are then taught a lesson by more violence which doesn’t resolve the crime they have committed. If offenders pay their time in prison and get support through treatments and programs provided by prisons, they can come back into society viewing the world in a different way. I also believe that with the support given to offenders who need that help, there will be considerate decreases of crime as criminals need specialist help to overcome the problems they have, as the reasons they have committed crimes such as robbery, theft, drug dealing, will be because of these problems and has a knock on effect to them becoming criminals. I do fear that the retributivist way of punishment may lead to innocent people being punished for crimes they haven’t committed and could therefore cause an outrage in
Open Document