Retribution is defined as “A just deserts perspective that emphasizes taking revenge on a criminal perpetrator or group of offenders” (Schmalleger, 2014, p. 341). This is the oldest form of punishment and is based solely on an emotional reaction to a transgression of sorts. Retribution is synonymous with revenge and retaliation, all based off the idea of just deserts. The phrase “just deserts”, comes from an archaic meaning of the word desert which means what one deserves. Schmalleger defines it as “A model of criminal sentencing that holds that criminal offenders deserve the punishment they receive at the hands of the law” (2014, p. 341) An aspect of retribution can involve shaming.
The punishment has to fit the crime and for the punishment to be effective it must be swift, certain, and severe. The Classical School of thought has several elements: 1. People have free will to choose criminal or lawful solutions to meet or handle their problems 2. Crime looks attractive when it promises great benefits with little effort 3. Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4.
Based on the Best Bet theory we can assume that the risk of losing one’s own life and any potential to ever see freedom again is just as good of a punishment as any other. If not using capital punishment reduces how many are deterred and does not reduce the number of innocent lives taken we too are responsible for the loss of those lives. We are responsible not only for our own direct actions but also for our inaction and the consequences of it. Objections to the death Penalty: Objection 1: “Capital punishment is a morally unacceptable thirst for revenge.” Revenge is a personal response, done out of anger and hatred, which inflicts harm to the perpetrator. Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another.
The philosophy of retribution is that of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In other words, that to cause a crime violates the social contract and a criminal must pay his or her debt to society by being punished. This principle suggests that a crime against one individual is a crime against all citizens. According to Lawlink, retribution is the theory that the guilty should endure the punishment which they entirely deserve. Denunciation then again, involves the imposition of a sentence which is in fact severe with regards to make a statement, which the crime in question is not to be tolerated by the community (2003).
Justice is to maintain order and to punish the criminals in which have committed the crime. Justice being served is a common term in which is used in the English language. In my opinion, justice being served means the person who committed the crime is being punished to the full extent of the law and the victims or the family of the victims can rest more peacefully knowing that the criminal is behind bars and will not hurt anyone else again. Justice to me is greater than the terms
The consensus is that the punishment should fit the crime, but never exceed it. Punishment philosophies address the courts’ responsibility in ordering sanctions as well as the methods by which these sanctions are administered. According to Meyer and Grant (2003), the four punishment philosophies are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. Recently, the concept of punishment was that of deterrence (stopping crimes, and teaching about consequences) and rehabilitation (changing a criminal’s behavior); however, the focus, now, is on incapacitation (confinement to prevent future crimes) and retribution (punishing an illegal act). In the end, however, all or none of the preceding theories may aid in the fifth possible philosophy, restoration (making the victim
It was clear upon reflection that I was placed well and truly in the Justice model supporters camp, one that called for swift and terrible justice that reflected the both the severity and evil nature of the crime .The demonisation of Venables and Thompson by the media as monsters that should be punished with no less than life in prison was (I felt at the time) justified. I then re evaluated the case asking myself how I felt I would react to it now applying the knowledge and values introduced through K115 and was surprised that they
Retribution is one of the main aims of punishment. Retribution means suffering from the punishment to balance out the evil deed that had been done. (www.dictionary.com) Most people would agree that if a terrible crime has been committed then a horrible punishment must be delivered back. The punishment must match the crime done. But should this be the way?
An accomplice should be given a sentence but the mastermind who lead the crime should be punished more and should in turn suffer more for the crime they committed. It is important that the guilty person is aware of them being worse off that before in order for the punishment to be effective. This is called experimental harm. Everybody has different triggers and how they do things. And thus the crime due to provocation is not always justified.
Incapacitation--> removing offenders capacity to re-offend, e.g. execution, imprisonment Retribution--> idea that society is entitled to take revenge for offender having breached moral code. DURKHEIM--> punishment upholds social solidarity and reinforces shared values by showing outrage at offence. Retributive justice: Traditional society has a strong collective consciousness, so punishment severe. Restitutive Justice: Modern society, extensive interdependence between individuals.