I will attempt to prove that the benefit of merely punishing criminals is minimal and that a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation would have far more overall benefit to society as a whole. A third important aspect to the justice system is keeping dangerous and violent individuals off the streets. This often seems to be equated with punishment, while the two are actually quite distinct and separate aims. I agree that there is often a need to isolate dangerous people from society at large, the question here is what our aims for the individual should be while they are in isolation. Emotion (1) Of the arguments one tends to hear in favour of prioritising punishment, the most persuasive are often emotional arguments.
Sentencing Throughout history there have been different degrees of correctional goals, but the one goal that has prevailed throughout history is punishment. Punishment is the formal penalty for committing an act that violates the law. Punishment should be certain, quick, and appear to be more severe than the crime itself. Andrew Von Hirsch (1976), one of the leading writers on punishment states “the sanctioning authority is entitled to choose a response that expresses moral disapproval: namely punishment” (p. 49). Many individuals who choose to commit crimes are rational individuals; they choose to commit crimes.
Foundations of the Criminal Justice System February 27, 2011 Kevin Kolbe The Effects of Punishment and Sentencing There are four ultimate philosophies surrounding the purpose of sentencing. They are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Retribution is the philosophy that those who commit a crime deserve to be punished based on the crime that they committed. A wrongdoer that has chosen to violate the laws needs to be punished accordingly. There punishment needs to be in proportion to the crime that was committed.
During the sentencing phase there are four objectives that are considered such as deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution. What is the purpose of these objectives and are they effective? The purpose of deterrence is to convince the public that committing crimes would result in certain punishments. The use of deterrence is implementing the use of harsher punishments that will deter those citizens whom are intending to commit a crime, will think twice before they do so. If criminals have to think about the potential consequences they may just deter away from the criminal act (Valerie Wright, 2010).
The psychological perspective sees criminal behaviour as a deviant action which causes hurt or discomfort to other people, whilst in exchange gaining a reward for themselves. Each of these views of an undesirable criminal behaviour need a remedy which will reduce or completely stop behaving in such a way again. When someone breaks the law there are two ways of dealing with them, to treat the offender, or to punish them. The aims of both treating and punishing an offender are the same, to prevent further re-offending. However both of these processes function in completely different ways, and some are more effective than others.
Egoist do not feel that the greatest happiness is a result of being spread out within a population. Egoism says that self is most important and whatever way to ensure that self is satisfied is the best option. Police officers and interrogators depend on this need to ‘help self’, when it comes to trying to get the answers they are looking for in order to solve a crime. The theory that is consistent with cooperating with the other prisoner and rejecting self would be the utilitarian theory. With utilitarianism, one feels that the common welfare and greater good of others is what is most important.
In cases of police brutality officers may see strict policy, which is the product of thoughtful analysis, as just procedure, which may not be detrimental to the officer if broken (Kinnaird203). In this case, officers may take advantage of a department’s latitude in the following of procedure. Other studies have shown that vague or unclear policies, policies that are written for the wrong objectives, and policies with little input from those who implement them can result in higher instances of police misconduct and prove much more ineffective (Kinnaird 203). Poor policy has been shown to have the opposite effect as well. In many cases of police death and injury officers have reported hesitation in exhibiting necessary force due to uncertainty “about what force options were permissible under law or department policy”
Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence. However the crime control model does not protect a suspected offender’s rights as much. The crime control model is based more on helping the victim, even if defendant’s rights are compromised. This model attempts to repress crime and give expansive power to police. It looks to find guilt rather than prove innocence.
Hate crimes penalties are greater than other crimes because of two main reasons first is that they are target to communities and second the individual who commit hate crime need to have greater culpability then those who commit a regular crime, based on those two reasons legislating a hate crime on character the liberal society might lose of its features. In this paper I will engage and explain Hurd’s view with taking in consideration three different points of view. The first one is the increased penalties for hate crimes are in fact justifiable, the second one is hate crimes
Specific deterrence generally targets individuals who have been punished or currently being punished for a criminal act with the hope of preventing them from committing crimes in the near future. General deterrence separates itself in that it works to prevent people from engaging in criminal acts by setting an example. In order for the deterrence doctrine to present itself in a plausible manner, effectiveness of punishment must be indentified. Bentham and Beccaria discuss reasoning to why the deterrence doctrine upholds according to these three terms known as certainty, severity and celerity of punishment. Each category differs yet all remain equally as important in order for deterrence to occur.