The Main Purpose of Punishment and Its Importance - Research Paper Example

 Goals of Punishment Introduction Punishment is a term that is used to describe any inherent retributive bound practice imposed for wrongdoing by the authority in charge. Punishment is usually a negative and an unpleasant consequence that one has to face for actions deemed inappropriate and unacceptable in relation to a system of law and agreed upon regulations. Punishments vary in degree, according to the level of breach of the law and outcomes of these actions, include privilege deprivation, incarceration, sanctions, fines, pain infliction, and in extreme case the death penalty. In relation to their proportionality and reciprocity, punishments can be looked at as either just or unjust. The main purpose of punishment and its importance can be summarized into these words namely retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (Cole, 2007). Retribution has for many years been the theoretical basis for the criminal justice system in many nations and governments, with its normative assumption being that there should be severe punishments for severe crimes committed. Retribution in criminal justice refers to the ideology that perpetrators of wrongful acts and deeds should be punished for crimes committed when they willingly violate laid down social rules. It is a call for punishment on the basis of a desire for vengeance because people should get what they deserve and rightfully earned. It therefore advocates for people to be treated in the same way, and in whatever measure that they voluntarily treat others. Retribution involves the concept of an eye for an eye, which provides for serious punishments when serious crimes are committed (Cole, 2007). The concept of retribution implies that offenders deserve punishment because they have breached the law from which everyone else benefits and taken advantage of law-abiding people in the society. Retribution brings back social balance, strengthens social bonds by sending a message that breaking the law is unacceptable, and has negative repercussions (Cole, 2007). The retributory school of thought would not be pro punishing a person who did not exercise free will or was compelled by another person or situation to commit a crime. It is important to note that retribution is different from other forms of punishment like utilitarianism whose aim is to act as a deterrent factor to crime (Cole, 2007). . It does not require actual damage to happen in order for punishment and legal action to be taken. Failed attempts at crimes like burglary or murder are therefore punishable in retribution despite not having taken place. The justification and practice of retribution varies widely from state to state with some allowing capital punishment whereas others provide leniency for first time lawbreakers. The objective here is to punish people for the crimes committed. Punishment is universal and equally applicable to all that is punishing all offenders who go against the same norm in the same manner with no favoritism or exceptions. Retributionists argue that in a just society, punishments are necessary and justified (Regoli, 2009). Deterrence refers to the concept of use of punishment as a threat to prevent people from breaking the law. Its main aim is to discourage members of the public from committing unlawful acts for fear of severe punishment. An individual who might have otherwise committed an offence is held back by the thought of the dire consequences of apprehension and conviction. The most effective deterrent is a criminal justice system that ensures that all offenders are arrested, convicted and punished in accordance with the laid down measures and that no personal gain is achieved from the offence committed in whatever set of circumstances. Deterrence requires the so called would be offenders to exhibit some level of reflective capacity before the offence is committed and to consider the outcomes of contravening the law if and when caught (Regoli, 2009). The severity, certainty and swiftness of punishment are the main pillars of deterrence in as far as understanding the law’s capability to control societal behavior is concerned. This view is of the idea that law breaking occurs when a person makes up their mind to do so after careful consideration of their own personal and current situation, and situational factors. Before choosing to break the law, the reasoning offender evaluates the possibility of getting arrested, the severity of the anticipated punishment and the values and gains to be obtained by committing the crime. Deterrence aims at lowering the gains of committing offences while increasing the possibility of apprehension and severity of punishment in order to prevent people from choosing to commit crime (Regoli, 2009). This concept is split into general or indirect deterrence and specific deterrence General Deterrence: Its emphasis is on the general prevention of crime through making examples out of arrested and convicted offenders. Laws, norms and enforcements are planned out and implemented to conceive and groom the image that unlawful and disruptive characters will get attention and subsequent punishment. The offender in person is not the focus of the shot at behavioral shifts, but rather is the recipient of punishment in full view of the public so as to deter others from even considering contravening the law. Though individuals are the objects of enforcement efforts, general deterrence is focused on lowering the probability of straying from the law in the society. Control activities such as specially formulated gang related crime bodies, driving under the influence crackdowns and notices of policies and laws are controlled activities that reflect the purpose of this concept (Clear, 2006). Specific Deterrence: Whereas general deterrence concept is focused on future characters and preventing people from committing offences by influencing their rational choice process, specific deterrence is focused on punishing known and identified offenders so as to prevent them recurrent breach of the law. The aim here is to discourage known criminals from future criminal practices by reserving severe punishments for repeat offenders as a negative sanction to extinguish problematic character. Corporal punishment, mandatory apprehension for specific behaviors like battery, and shock sentencing are some of the aimed at specific deterrence (Clear, 2006). Incapacitation as a concept is a mechanism that aims at preventing future crime not by rehabilitation but rather by taking away one’s ability to commit offensive acts. Criminals are incarcerated not to instill discipline for the rule of law but rather to make crime out of reach to them. The prisoner is restrained from committing more offences as they re physically plucked out of the society that they are thought to have offended. Incapacitation has also been though of as a deterrent factor by some people because it reduces crime by restricting the criminal’s opportunity to further breaks the law. Recent research shows that recidivism in convicted offenders after release from prison is more than 67% and that a great majority of prison inmates had convictions and records of arrest in the past. It seeks to protect the society at large from criminals who might cause harm and bring danger to them by locking them up in correctional institutions (Clear, 2006). This mode of punishment may fall short of altering future character but it reduces access of an offender to crime and in effect reduces the threat threshold posed by the offender to the society. The intention to incapacitate is usually facilitated by long-term incarcerations against repeat offenders. Three strikes sentencing, back-to-back life sentences and no possibility for parole are all avenues used to incapacitate in various criminal justice systems (Clear, 2006). Rehabilitation refers to the ideology of perpetuating fundamental changes in convicted felons and their character. The main aim of rehabilitation is to reduce he prevalence of crime and the number of offences committed. Rehabilitation denotes the act of restoring a convicted criminal to a constructive area in the society by means of therapy and training. This concept is focused on the criminal in person as it offers them an opportunity to learn about their problems and most importantly how to change their character to avert crime and live a crime free life after rehabilitation. The scale is tipped more to the therapeutic rather than the punitive side in as far as rehabilitation is concerned. It looks at criminal character like an infirmity that is to be treated in accordance with available scientific methods to heal the offender (Zaibert, 2006). Many convicted offenders suffer from physical and mental disorders, addiction to controlled substances and drugs, and reduced opportunities to earn a decent living. These issues multiply the likelihood that these convicted criminals will go back to crime as away of life. Whereas rehabilitation was used as a means of reforming character, it is now widely used as a means of preventing recurrence of crime. Supervision by the community especially through probation is one of the ways of rehabilitating criminals (Zaibert, 2006). Rehabilitation is the most effective and efficient method of punishment in my view. This is so because, unlike the other punitive concepts, it takes the approach of looking into the causative factors and reasons for criminal behavior so that one can be incorporated back into the society as a law abiding and productive member. Instead of merely carrying out vengeance against these offenders and making matters worse, rehabilitation actually attempts to help and rescue them from criminal behavior (Zaibert, 2006). References George F.Cole, C. E. (2007). Criminal justice in America. Stanford: Cengage Learning. Robert M. Regoli, J. D. (2009). Exploring Criminal Justice: The essentials. New York: Jones & Bartleff Learning. Todd R. Clear, G. F. (2006). American corrections. Stamford: Cengage learning. Zaibert, L. (2006). Punishment and retribution. New York: Ashgate publishing. Read More