Sunday, September 29, 2019
Punishment And Crime Essay
â€Å"An eye for an eye†¦Ã¢â‚¬ The standards by which individuals and society subscribe to where being done wrong and seeking retribution, or in the general scope, where crime and punishment is concerned, can be summed up and approximated in the aforementioned line. Our view of justice, the resolution of a violation, and the prevention thereof doesn’t stray far from the said concept either. While other countries, particularly those in the middle eastern region, tolerate and employ the said ideology in the literal sense, mutilating the arms and limbs of people caught guilty of thievery, for instance. In the much more ‘civilized’ and ‘developed’ nation that is our country however, the instance of ‘Retribution,’ ‘Deterrence,’ ‘Rehabilitation,’ and ‘Societal Protection’ exists as corresponding forms of punishment to violations against humanity and against society’s prescribed laws. Its eff ectivity in terms of deterring crime, however, remains subjective.            The concept of retribution or retributive justice exists under the premise that people are, or should be dealt with a punishment which fits in proportion to their respective crimes. The concept of ‘merit’ and ‘desert’ are introduced as factors central to retributive justice (Maiese). The simplest explanation would be that if a person where to do ‘good’ and work hard, his or her actions will be met with an equal amount of goodness, or reward. Conversely, a person who commits to doing the opposite, who breaks laws and violates aspects of humanity, are to receive a form of punishment equal to what they have inflicted. Where the instance of ‘merit’ and ‘desert’ is concerned, justice is defined by dealing a person the corresponding reward or punishment which he or she deserves based on the instance of ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ ‘right’ and ‘wron g’ courses of action which a person chooses to pursue.            Punishment in retributive justice constitutes the previously quoted line in the introduction of this paper, albeit not as literally; which, in the context of almost every justice system, and to put it quite crudely, people are to be treated in the same manner by which they choose to treat other individuals. This much is evident in the amount of community service, jailtime, and other forms of punishment which an offender is obliged to fulfill depending on the gravity of the crimes or offenses he or she has committed. Crimes and offenses which may range from driving without a license to armed robbery, rape, and perhaps even murder, will determine whether the offender in question will receive a simple reprimand, a ticket or a fine, a day in a jail cell, or be committed to minimum or maximum security, and to the most grave of offenses, receive capital punishment or death penalty.            The theory of deterrence on the other hand, departs from the seeming reasonable sensibilities afforded by the concept of retribution and runs under the idea that if a corresponding consequence or punishment of a crime outweighs the possible benefit or significance of committing it, the person who intends to commit the said crime may be deterred from pursuing it.            Deterrence turns to the instance of heavier consequences to criminal acts and offenses as opposed to punishments proportionate to actions which have been committed, as a more effective way of preventing individuals from committing crimes. The theory of deterrence runs under the premise and assumption that every individual is conscious of his or her actions, that people are consciously aware of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and that people’s action, be it of deviance or conformity, subscribing to rules or breaking it, results from free will. Under the said assumptions, people who are inclined to break the law or commit to similar acts of violations are aware of the consequence and gravity of the situation. Knowing that the corresponding consequences will have a greater negative impact than the deviance and offenses they may choose to commit will advise them to do otherwise. In the instance that people are blamed or convicted for crimes and offenses they did not commit, punishments would appear greater than they already are. For most people, this appears to be the most effective way of deterring crime, but it also appears to be the least humane and insensible where offenders are concerned.            On the subject of relatively ‘humane’ methods of punishment, the concept of rehabilitation seems to effectively apply. A term which probably closesly identifies with drug abuse, excessive smoking, eating disorders, and other behavioral problems, the concept of rehabilitation applies to more than the said destructive behaviors and relates to a type of punishment which confines an individual to a place where he or she is unable to repeat offenses and untolerated acts which he or she has previously committed.            Rehabilitation turns to a less immediate and much lengthier process of ‘punishing’ the criminal or offender in question. ‘Doing time’ in prison cells and rehabilitation centers may appear the most tame and seemingly weak or ineffective forms of punishment, but the reality of incarceration, of being put away and shut out from the rest of society, and rotting away in a period of time which appear to span indefinitely, bears it own share of torment.            The said form of punishment has the capacity to affect the offender in question on a psychological level, as he or she is forced to contemplate the nature of his or her actions and its consequences in the course of the said person’s confinement and rehabilitation, at the end of which the individual in question is released and deemed fit to continue his or her life and start anew. Crimes are supposed to be deterred by keeping people away from society at large, who may choose to repeat the said crimes or influence others from doing the same.            Societal Protection concerns itself with the rights and needs of the society as a whole, as opposed to individuals which comprise it, and turning to forms of punishment such as the previously mentioned rehabilitation, among others, as a means of protecting and preserving roles, function, structures, and procesess within society.            Ultimately, society and individuals within it do what they can to ensure security, peace and stability from ensuing and taking hold. Not every form of punishment that has been discussed can be deemed rational and effective in every aspect, and they can vary in meaning and translation from one individual to the next. But as far as opinions apply, it exists as the least of surprises how certain forms of evil can’t be countered and put off by other forms of evil. Retribution will not solve people and society’s problems, and forms of punishment, however necessary, unfortunately only reflect society’s capacity to inflict pain and suffering to people who may or may not truly deserve them. References     Keel, Robert. â€Å"Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory.†14 July 2005. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html     Maiese, Michelle. â€Å"Types of Justice.†July 2003. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from            http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types_of_justice/     Maiese, Michelle. â€Å"Retributive Justice.†May 2004. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from            http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/     Summerfield, Morgan. â€Å"Evolution of Deterrence Crime Theory.†18 May 2006. Retrieved   18 January 2008 from  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/32600/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.