(INTRODUCTION)Did you ever have a love one who was innocent but still served time for no reason all because he or she was in the wrong place at the wrong time or just the main suspect of a crime because he or she fit the description a witness provided. I go to a school in West Fargo and I’m a junior haven’t really seen unjust in my life to anyone I know. But read multiple articles on unjust sentence to people and wrote multiple paragraphs on the cases I read 24 to be exact. The article included lawyers view the innocent victim view and also the witness view after the trail. (Reason)people are sent to jail over speculations and evidence that don't connect to the victim of the crime.
This process will ensure that each offender receives the proper punishment and that the community is satisfied with the decision. The offender-based models, retributive and utilitarian, does not help the victim recover. Restorative justice is designed
Within this framework, individuals are considered to make rational choices, equally capable of reason and therefore shall be deemed responsible for their actions and deterred through potential threat. Today, classical thinking is evident in sentencing via the “just deserts” approach. This approach to sentencing assures that someone who is found guilty of a crime must be punished for the crime. The just deserts approach rejects individual discretion and rehabilitation – insisting “justice must be
Though the Treatment Model can be viewed as the best way of counteracting a juveniles problem, there are some who challenge the model by instead using the due process philosophy. To get a better understanding of the due process direction, reformers turned to David Fogel's Justice Model and it's concept of just deserts. This model believes that both juvenile and adult offenders are volitional and responsible human beings, and deserve to be punished equally under the law.
From a utilitarian perspective, the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment is questionable, as research has shown that it does not significantly reduce crime rates (Equal Justice Initiative, 2023). Instead, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and retribution that undermines the ultimate goal of
The concept of retribution sits well in the framework of police work. My parents, both being former police officers, believe heavily in retribution/just deserts. It is ingrained in the mindset of police, “You do the crime, and you pay the time.” The majority of the Reagan police family has that ideology. Retribution is also known as Just Deserts, which the book argues is a term that more liberals use, which is punishment that is due to the offender but only the punishment the offender deserves as to not cause the offender more suffering than deserved.
Suneri Kothari November 11, 2015 AP US Gov. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Background & Climate: This case occurred in 1950s, a period during which there was much racial segregation and inequality for colored people. Children attended different schools based on color: black children did not go to the same school as white children. There was also separation between the two races in other public places such as restaurants and trains. This segregation was legal in 1954 because of the “separate but equal” doctrine that resulted from the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, among other factors.
This is a model that allows people to get what they deserve, however it is lead by restraint. Restraint allows for a delay in order to deliberate and decide on a punishment that fits the crime nicely rather than being over or under sized. By allowing an outside source to view the case, the goal is that both sides points are understood and taken into account. Questions are asked such as what is enough? How far is too far?
The just desert is that the punishment is deserved and that criminal sentencing holds criminal offenders morally blameworthy and deserve punishment. This means that moral balance is restored to society wronged by crime. The fourth goal is deterrence (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). Deterrence discouragement or prevention of crimes through the fear of punishment.
"Moral desert" is just a philosophical notion that a person deserves something based on his or her actions, and it is not cleared up by equality retributivism because equality retributivism calls for us to "behave barbarically to those who are guilty of barbaric crimes" (Nathanson). Another example of this is imagine a rapist. It would be barbaric and morally unacceptable to rape the rapist. Even though it may seem that those who kill should be killed themselves, it really isn't moral and is not universally
The traditional goals of sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation (Stinchcomb, 2011). A more contemporary goal of criminal sanctions is restorative and community justice (Stinchcomb, 2011). Retribution is founded on the principle that offenders should receive their ‘just desserts’. However, the penalty must be proportionate to the offence committed (Welch, 2004, p.83) Deterrence aims to reduce criminal offending.
The Just deserts era starts from 1995 all the way to our present time, this era focuses on the warehousing of prisoners, punishment, establish sentences, and mainly to transmit a message of self-responsibility to citizens by showing that those who commit crimes will be accountable for their crimes and punish with long sentences (History of Corrections). Some of the disadvantages of this era are that it does not provide inmates with many opportunities or programs for rehabilitation unlike the Reformative Era in which the main focus was the rehabilitation of inmates, the warehousing of inmates and long sentences will create overcrowding of the prisons which can lead to riots that can put the safety of correctional officers in danger (Ortmeier,
Through the decades, crime and crime control have been analyzed in an attempt to find the causes of crime and decide how to combat them. The United States showed an increase in their prison population in the 1970s when the country turned towards a more punitive justice system. Referred to as just deserts theory of crime, the aim is to inflict as much pain on the offender through harsh prison sentences, in hopes to cause as much pain as the crime they committed. The worse the crime is, the worse the punishment the criminal will endure. The issue surrounding just deserts theory is the vast amount of offenders who return to prison after being released, also known as the recidivism rate.
The disadvantage of this approach is the fact that it does not focus on the victim instead it justifies the offender’s actions by regarding them as patients and victims of dysfunctional societies Restitution
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.
