ipl-logo

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

Show More
Related
1997 Words | 8 Pages

While many opponents argue the economics of the issue, they fail to acknowledge that the main goals of punishment are to correct behavior that is deviant from the law and to prevent similar incidences from occurring. Without capital punishment, the culprits would not have to confront the potential of death, meaning that the marginal cost of violent crime would be diminished. Therefore, capital punishment is an effective method to deter

Read More
1529 Words | 7 Pages

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

Read More
541 Words | 3 Pages

What is different about that? So instead, the punishment that is commonly and usually given to the criminals such as murders, rapists,

Read More
1517 Words | 7 Pages

The deterrence theory suggests that “the severity of criminal sanctions dissuades other potential offenders from committing crimes out of fear of punishment. ”4 That is applicable to the individuals that are punished and to people in the community. Nevertheless, prison’s effectiveness is often questioned as an effective deterrent to crime. Studies have shown that longer sentences have a small effect on whether offenders commit crimes or not, and the National Academy of Sciences determined that “insufficient evidence exists to justify predicating policy choices on the general assumption that harsher punishments yield measurable deterrent effects.

Read More
663 Words | 3 Pages

As we know, there are many ways criminals can be punished. When sentencing happens, the defendant is usually sentenced to the following punishments, listed from minor to extreme: Fines Community service Diversion programs Probation GPS monitoring Jail Prison Death penalty (Rio Salado, 2022). Most of these punishments can be listed under either the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to 'deter' future wrongdoings.

Read More
691 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
136 Words | 1 Pages

When the American prison system began, it was believed that rehabilitation, the act of restoring one’s character, could be beneficial for criminals to start over. According to Tom Wicker, “The system…began as a reform impulse, the idea that if offenders were isolated, shielded from the public mockery that had accompanied hangings and the stocks, given time to repent, and worked hard, they could be turned away from crime and transformed into useful citizens” (xii). Criminals could become better citizens and have a positive outlook for a future if they worked hard and were secluded from the outside world. Although this idea seems more humane, it did not last long in the prison system because many people believed that any crime committed deserved

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

Within the judicial and criminal justice systems, restorative justice is seen as a forward moving process in regards to the way in which the sentencing of offenders is handled (Britto & Reimund, 2013). Restorative justice works to focus on the needs of both the victim and the offender but incorporates the community as well as those who support both the victim and offender (Britto & Reimund, 2013). The approach of restorative justice in not simply a means by which society responds to and reduces crime but instead, provides an equivalently valuable social response to crime (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). Furthermore, the restorative approach places emphasis on the personal and relational harms which were caused by the crime while creating space for dialogue concerning the actual damage, whether directly or

Read More
1485 Words | 6 Pages

The retribution part is to punish the person for the crime that they permitted against society, and the incapacitation part is to remove that person out of society so they do no further harm. Deterrence means the prevention of future crime, and the rehabilitation teaches life skills and in the betterment. However, author Sandiford says that instead of solving crime, mass incarceration has infected our communities and striking them with devastating symptoms, and prison costs have skyrocketed, inmates ' families have been torn apart, and the system is overwhelmingly stratified by race and class (Sandiford,

Read More
683 Words | 3 Pages

Traditionally, crime has been viewed as a violation against the state. Still too little attention is given to the fact that criminal acts are also violations of the victims and the communities. Punishing and correcting offenders’ criminal behaviors should not only be conducted using the concepts of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence, it should also be designed to repair the damages done to the victims and the communities. Many benefits are associated with shifting to the restorative justice model, for the victim, the offender, and the community. Restorative justice benefits the victims by giving them a voice regarding the accountability of the offender.

Read More
992 Words | 4 Pages

The attractiveness of this theory is primarily based on the ethical code that Hampton subscribes to, which is that pain-inflicted punishments should not be condoned when it comes to disciplining wrongdoers. Rather, constructive analysis done pertaining to why certain actions are morally wrong in society would be intellectually stimulating and productive for both the wrongdoers and the public, all while avoiding the infliction of physical pain. Compared to the retributivist argument, which circulates around the idea that the purpose of punishment is to make wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, and that they should be treated the way that they have treated others, the MET is a more humane way to treat wrongdoers, and in the long run, would perhaps help them emerge from confinement as better citizens within society, rather than as potential repeat offenders. Therefore, the appeal of the MET stems from the positive implications of treating wrongdoers with respect and dignity, all while teaching them why their actions were wrong while simultaneously instilling positive and moral values in their psyche before allowing them to re-enter

Read More
1479 Words | 6 Pages

Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. 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).

Read More
728 Words | 3 Pages

The concept of ‘recidivism’ is central to understanding the criminal justice system. Recidivism occurs when a person commits a crime again despite having been punished before. One of the main goals of the criminal justice system is to reduce recidivism but in fact longer sentences may increase the probability of recidivism (Griffiths & Cunningham, 2000). One reason is that the climate within a prison is not helpful to the inmate in making personal changes that can lead to reduced recidivism. However, psychologists are trying to develop intervention programmes that in fact lead to such personal changes so as to reduce recidivism.

Read More
1678 Words | 7 Pages

However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).

Read More
1048 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More

More about Reductivist View Of Punishment

Related Topics

Open Document