The Purpose Of Punishment In The Justice System Criminology Essay

The Purpose Of penalty In The Justice System Criminology EssayCase Study 2 The purpose of Punishment within the twist justice system. What role does penalisation serve within the criminal justice system? Consider the power played by reductivism, incapacitation, retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation as by-products of the perceived extremity for the criminal justice system to punish wrongdoers. How suck up political policies and other(a) ideologies affected the state emphasis on the need to punish wrongdoers?In the future(a) paragraphs it is going to be explained the role of penalisation within the criminal justice system. Furtherto a greater extent, we are going to get involved with theories and objectives related to penalisation such as reductivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and finally retribution.Beginning our case study we take in to argue that there is considerable controversy over the intensity level of penalisation in reducing offence, but whether or non its actual forte, tacit is the only method being used conforming someone who make a misdeed, back to community and freedom. Punishment can be plain defined as a legally approved method intentional to facilitate the task of annoyance control (Carrabine, 2004), and its main purpose is to reconstruct the offender, expiate the victim and dissuade others from becoming wrongdoers. In order to successfully create a holistic view on the matter, we have to centralize on many a(prenominal) punishment perspectives and theories as it is the only way for a critical evaluation. punishment as a loving institution is an inherently complex business that needs to be approached from a range of supposed perspectives as no single interpretation will grasp the several(a) meanings generated by punishment (Carrabine, 2004).The reductive supposition of punishment justifies that punishment occurs because it helps to stop and reduce future consequences of crime, acting as a forwa rd-looking speculation for the general good. Moreover, claims that if punishment takes place, future crime will be little than if no penalty were inflicted. For punishment to reduce future crimes, the pain and sorrowfulness caused to the offender mustiness be outweighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other pile in the future (Cavadino, 2002). Therefore, it is a moral action against criminals (famously advanced by Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832) since it produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. Nevertheless, there are many apparatuss of reduction which will be shown below.Deterrence based on useful theories, is a method of reduction and its main perspective is that if you cause someones fear, therefore he will be afraid to offend and break the jurisprudence (tough on crime). Moreover, separates deterrence into general and individual justifying that general is when punishment dissuades others from following the offenders example, in spite of individu al deterrence which aims to teach delinquent non to repeat the behavior. Deterrence lacks to produce strong and validate evident of its effectiveness as no certain penalty prevented someone from committing a addicted crime.What is more, referring to the individual deterrence, my opinion is that we can non say whether or not an offender halt his criminal behaviour, simply because not all crimes are being convicted. Also, match to official crime statistics, I believe, there is not such effectiveness as Michael Howards supported about prison/punishment and toughness on crime. Prison works. It en sure enoughs that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists- and it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice (Michael Howard, Home Secretary 1993).Rehabilitation is another mechanism of crime reduction which is going to be produced and evaluated on the following paragraphs. jibe to rehabilitation the root of punishment is to apply treatment to the offender so tha t he is made capable afterwards to return back to the society as a law-abiding member. Rehabilitation is viewed as a humanitarian alternative comparing to the harshness of retribution and deterrence giving more a programme function to the punishment, without that meaning that an offender would receive a more lenient penalty for his offence. An serious property of rehabilitation is that the offender could stay on probation whether that means outside prison or inner until he is thought to be ready. Critics though assume that if the prison administrator is the responsible one who decides if offender made a progress and he is ready to go, hence corruption may occur which will sidestep the true situation. Finally, another issue is that an offender guilty for minor crime probably could not tolerate lengthy detentions simple because of inability or refusal to adopt a subservient attitude toward prison officers and authority in general.Continuing our study we will refer to retributiv e theory which is in total antithesis of reductivism and justifies that punishment came as result of criminality. An attractive feature is that retributivism is a natural connection between the retributive approach and the idea that both offenders and victims have rights. Reductivist theory always founds it difficult to encompass the whimsey of rights, even when it comes to providing entirely innocent people with a right not to be punished. Retributivism has no such problem, since it follows automatically from the retributive principle that it must be wrong to punish non-offenders.Criminals, according to retributivist principle deserve the punishment because in some way, evil for evil somehow make a right. Additionally, according to retributivism, severity of a punishment should be proportionate to the dryness of the offence (tariff). What is more, retributive punishment, argues that applies fairly and equally to all of us as long as we all live in the same proportionality follow ed by the same norms and values. The main issue with such a theory is that it would be objective only if we were all genuinely equal sharing the same advantages. Detected offenders typically start from a position of social disadvantage (Cavadino, 2002). From the moment retributive punishment tries to inflict equality restoring the balance, then increases inequality rather than do the opposite.The last theory refers to the act of making the offender not capable of committing a crime and is known as the incapacitation theory. According to that, offenders who have committed repeated crimes or thought to be dangerous are being punished by execution or lengthy incarceration (life imprisonment). Such a punishment though regrettably makes it difficult to identify that kind of offenders. Thus, it is extremely controversial the principle of incapacitation peculiarly to those who assist that punishment should advocate equal retribution followed by dignity. An important controversial example evaluating incapacitation is the chemical-castration of sex offenders (against children) with hormonal drugs which was first adopted in the U.S of California in 1996 and proved that drugs alone did not make the offender incapable of committing sex crimes.To conclude, I would like to say that I have not come to a conclusion yet on whether or not punishment actually helps and rehabilitates the delinquents. But I am sure that punishment so far is the function which separates those who live legally and those who do not. I also believe that the fear of punishment changes people behaviour a lot, as we all are afraid of punishment is that not true? Ultimately, I would like to finish with Sir Thomas Mores opinion which finds me alone agreed. Society first creates thieves, and then punishes them for stealing. There has always existed a curiously symbolic relationship between the criminal and society. It is not so oftentimes that society tolerates crime, rather the structure of modern soci ety inevitably creates situations and passel in which crime occurs(Weisser, 1979).