If you put the death penalty in play criminals will more than likely think twice before doing a crime because they know at the end of the day they will have to pay for there actions. Therefore death and crime rates will go down. The death penalty is essntial to protect our towns and loved ones lifes from the dangers of other people. The
It is necessary for those who refuse to accept unjust administration of punishment. Capital punishment is often justified by saying that by executing the murders birth of new murders would be prevented. Executions especially when they are more painful and public create a sense of horror and halts those tempted towards criminality to violate laws. In countries such as Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria and New York crime rates are exceptionally high and this affects the population there. The police also works inefficiently in these countries and the criminals easily escape from punishments.
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. First, during lecture three, we talked about the notion of just deserts.
Humans no longer cut off a limb for stealing or burn people at the stake for witchcraft. Now punishment has turned more into serving time for what you have done. There are other checks like probation, parole, and fines that criminals are expected to carry out and follow through the years. In America, we have this notion that people cannot change and once they become a criminal they will always be one. Because of this, states want to be able to take away more rights of the convicted felon population.
This model focuses on the individual needs of the offender and in doing so increases their chance of living sober once they reenter society. For example, indeterminate sentencing allows offenders who exhibit good behavior and participate in prison substance abuse programs to be paroled closer to the minimum sentencing term. This means the offender can be released from prison based on conditions set forth by the court. If the offender violates parole by committing another crime or failing to continue substance abuse treatment, they can be returned to prison. Furthermore, offering indeterminate sentencing for offenders who meet the criteria creates prison space thus helping with the ongoing problem of prison overcrowding (Seiter,
Those who executed a violent act, most wanted, or dangerous, deserves a spot in jail. According to Time it said, “25% of prisoners (364,000 people), almost all non-violent, lower level offenders would be better served by alternatives to incarceration such as treatment, community service or probation.” Yes, it is true that they would be better off somewhere else because jail won’t be any help. Those who believes that the prisoners should not be released might claim that releasing prisoners is a very dangerous idea. Some prisoners might just end up repeating their actions, and this time someone could get hurt. They are in prison for a reason.
Many people have struggled for years with being addicted to drugs and have been sent to jail for it rather than getting treatment. There’s also been lots of violence because of the drug trafficking, which has been a worry some issue in some countries. Despite all that, there has been evidence for a change. The Global Community can win the Drug War because with a new approach and a few modifications, we can stop the chaos and help those in need. One thing that could possibly help is that if they made drugs legal, we could easily help stop most of the issues between individuals.
After reading both articles about incarceration, I am in more support of the article The Greatest Correctional Myth: Winning the War on Crime Through Incarceration. There are many reasons as to why I chose to support the claims made in this article. Firstly, almost everyone who has been previously incarcerated or is currently incarcerated will eventually be released back into society. With that being said, the way our correctional system is set up is not beneficial for those released convicts. Having individuals locked up and hidden from society is not the right way to go about punishment.
They were expected to lower crime rates, because people will possibly think twice before committing a crime if the mandatory minimum sentence is five year or if they have been convicted before, they will not want to be incarcerated again for double the time. Judges cannot change the sentence. All the reasons that the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were set into place appear to be good ideas, but they are ineffective. The law has not shown crime reduction. The history of mandatory sentencing in the United states for federal drug crimes had started with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, also known as SRA.
The death penalty has many different alternatives, but the one that makes the most sense is life in prison with no chance at parole. Most people have the misconception that if the criminal is not sentenced if the death penalty, then they will be releases when years. I think everyone can age that they don 't want a vengeful serial killer roaming the streets. That is why a life sentence without parole is the best option a more criminal instead of the death penalty. With no parole, as an option will cost a lot less than
Criminals that are apprehended are punished with jail time. Some go to state run jails, federal prison, boot camps, or maximum security prisons. I theory that criminal sanctions should scare criminals straight, and convinced them that they never want to commit a crime again because of jail time. You would think that the loss of freedom, privilege to vote, and ability to enjoy life would scare someone straight. Well it does not, Research has found that prisoner’s in max security prisons has a higher return rate, than prisoner’s in state ran jails.
It is believed that letting a criminal free from incarceration puts society at risk. Before the reform recidivism rates were high, scaring the public with the idea that criminals can reenter society. When comparing individuals who were sentenced to prison to those in diversion programs, those in diversion programs were more likely to stay out of jail while those who went to jail were more likely to have re-arrests. It was reported that 64% of the treatment sample were arrest-free over a two-year follow up period. Those in the diversion program had recidivism rates as low as 36%; this compares to the group who were given jail time with a recidivism rate of 54% (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015).
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.
Having the death penalty in our society is humane it helps with the overcrowding problem and gives a feeling of alleviation to the families who had to go through the hardship of losing a loved one. The death penalty is meant to deter would-be criminals from committing felonies, But does the death penalty actually stop people from committing crimes and murder? this question is in the main focus of most political arguments over this topic. Some