Punishment And Crime Essay

An eye for an eye The standards by which individuals and union take on to where being done damage and seeking retri scarceion, or in the full general scope, where aversion and penalty is concerned, offer be summed up and approximated in the aforesaid(prenominal) line. Our view of evaluator, the resolution of a violation, and the prevention thereof doesnt locomote far from the said idea either. While separate countries, particularly those in the middle eastern region, tolerate and employ the said ideology in the literal sense, mutilating the arms and limbs of tribe caught guilty of thievery, for instance. In the much more than civilized and developed nation that is our country however, the instance of Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Societal resistance exists as corresponding forms of penalty to violations against humanity and against societys positivist laws. Its effectivity in verges of deterring crime, however, remains field of forceive. The concept o f retribution or retributive justice exists under the premise that people ar, or should be dealt with a penalty which fits in proportion to their respective crimes. The concept of deserve and desert be introduced as factors central to retributive justice (Maiese). The simplest definition would be that if a someone where to do good and work hard, his or her actions result 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 penalization equal to what they pitch inflicted. Where the instance of merit and desert is concerned, justice is defined by dealings a person the corresponding reward or punishment which he or she deserves based on the instance of good and bad, right and wrong courses of action which a person opts 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 kind of crudely, people are to be treated in the same mien 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 touch depending on the gravity of the crimes or offenses he or she has committed. Crimes and offenses which may wheel 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 tokenish 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 outw eighs 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 respirerain been committed, as a more powerful 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 alert of what constitutes good and malefic and that peoples 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 choos e 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 protrude greater than they already are. For most people, this appears to be the most effective way of deterring crime, but it likewise 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 inefficient to double up offenses and untolerated acts which he or she has previously committed. Rehabilitation turns to a less(prenominal) immediate and much lengthier process of punishing the crim inal 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 mental ability to affect the offender in question on a mental 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 persons 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 memory 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 op posed to individuals which comprise it, and turning to forms of punishment such as the previously mentioned rehabilitation, among others, as a means of defend and preserving roles, function, structures, and procesess within society. Ultimately, society and individuals within it do what they can to ensure security, peaceableness 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. further as far as opinions apply, it exists as the least of surprises how certain forms of evil cant be countered and put off by other forms of evil. Retribution will not solve people and societys problems, and forms of punishment, however necessary, unfortunately only reflect societys skill to inflict pain and suffering to people who may or may not truly deserve them.References Keel, Robert. Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory. 14 July 2005. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from http//www.umsl.edu/keelr/200/ratchoc.html Maiese, Michelle. Types of Justice. July 2003. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from http//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types_of_justice/ Maiese, Michelle. Retributive Justice. May 2004. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from http//www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/ Summerfield, Morgan. Evolution of Deterrence Crime Theory. 18 May 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2008 from http//www.associatedcontent.com/article/32600/