Bentham states that; “pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends which the legislator has in view,” (Bentham, pg 106), meaning that crime and action are determined by the end goal of whether it brings pleasure or pain to the individual. This is important to the study of criminal justice as rational because people are
Objectives of Punishment within the U.S. Corrections System CJA492 January 28, 2013 Melissa Andrewjeski The state and federal objectives of punishment are the consequence or penalty for a crime that was committed. The punishment is to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence. The punishment is to prevent the crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences. In other words the punishment needs to be severe enough to make the offender not want to reoffend. The punishment is to protect the community from the offender by keeping them off the street, and trying to reconcile if this person wants to change for the better, in essence to also promote the rehabilitation option to the offender which could help denounce the conduct of the offender, but ultimately for the offender to recognize the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.
Opponents of civil disobedience see it as a threat to democratic society and the forerunner of violence and anarchy. The premise... to disobey a law that they feel is unjust. As martin luther king Jr. , wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law. " Civil disobedience is most justifiable when prior lawful attempts to rectify the situation have failed; and when the acts of civil disobedience are done to force the society to recognize the problem; when performed openly and publicly; and when the actor will accept the punishment. Many proponents urge that civil disobedience be used only in the most extreme cases, arguing that the Constitution provides many opportunities to voice one's grievances without breaking the law.
Prejudice is an outlook on a race or culture where as discrimination requires an action against a minority. These two concepts can be independent of each other or work together. A prejudiced person does not neccsarily discriminate. Scapegoat theory is the transfer of responsibility to a vulnerable group rather than to take responsibility for a failure. (Schaefer, 2006) Exploitation theory is used to justify keeping a group in a subordinate position.
Labelling is “interpersonal” and defines what is not deviance or what deviant behaviour is. Applying the label creates the behaviour. Once you impose a label, that label is “stricken”. The process of labelling is not perfect and has certain consequences and does not only depend on the person labelling. Labelling theory suggests that “deviants are those people who have been successfully labelled as such by others” (Kendall, Murray, Linden, 2003:206).
This can be seen as the ‘dark figure’. These theorists object that statistics are not unbiased/objective, but are socially constructed. As such statistics tell us more about the compliers than they do about the activities of criminals. Consequently, labelling theorists tend to use participant observation or in-depth interviews as the preferred research method. Labelling theory asks us to question the opinions of experts, to not take their opinions for granted.
This is taking them out of society and reducing their ability to commit any other crimes. Rehabilitation is the philosophy that society is best served when wrongdoers are not simply punished but to also provide resources needed to eliminate criminal behavioral. These four philosophies provide us with a basic understanding of what the purpose is behind sentencing. Now that we have a basic understanding of what is behind sentencing let’s look at the structure of sentencing. Some of the things that determine sentencing are legislative sentencing authority, judicial sentencing, and administrative sentencing.
Retribution, also known as retributive justice, is the practice of “getting back at” the criminal or wrongdoer. The saying "Let the punishment fit the crime" refers to that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the crime. One famous historical example would be from the bible, where it states “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” though later Christians interpreted this emphasizing compassion and tolerance rather than punishment. Deterrence, unlike retribution and rehabilitation, is based on the concept that if the consequence of committing the crime outweighs the benefit of committing the crime itself, the person committing the crime would be deterred from committing it. It is a measure of prevention to those who have the thought of committing crime or criminal activity.
On the other hand, it is dysfunctional to the society as it erodes moral values and breaks connecting social norms. It destroys and destabilizes the society as it creates conflicts that may extend to both communities of the assailant and defendant. Assault impacts negatively on social cohesion and interpersonal relationships (Nisbet, 1974). In conclusion, assault is a dreadful social deviance whose dysfunctional features of society far outweigh the functional. Therefore, in order to create a stable and cohesive society, the deviance needs to be controlled or eliminated by postulating and devising tough consequences for
Guilt, shame, attributions, conciliatory behavior, perceived forgiveness from victim or higher power, and severities of the offense are some of the many processes that constitute self-forgiveness. These processes causes the offender or the offended to account to more positive reprimands and fewer ongoing negative reprimands of the transgression than do offenders who have not forgiven themselves. Hall and Fincham explain that three levels of self-forgiveness and self-respect must ensue to involve restoration. First, self-forgiveness requires an objective fault or wrongdoing; second, negative feelings triggered by this offender must be overcome; and, third, and internal acceptance of oneself must be achieved. (Hall & Fincham, 2005) This means that in self-forgiveness, the offender acknowledges his or her essential worth and its sovereignty for his or her contravention.