Theories of punishment

Remove all ads!

Guess what, when you answer this, you'll be assisting me with a speech I have to do. What are your views on the current theories of punishment, that is:

• Retribution

Eye for an eye punishment. Includes capital punishment.

• Rehabilitation

Rehabilitating a felon so he can get a place in society after serving time.

• Deterrence

Harsh punishment for offender to deter him and community from offending again.

• Denunciation

Denouncing bad behaviour.

• Prevention

Preventing offenders that will reoffend from leaving prison.

Do you think that they are effective?
How can they be improved?
What do you think should be punished harsher?
For or against capital punishment, why whynot?

Need to finish this tonight, so lets get some answers.

 

Retribution- I'm all for it.

Rehabilitation- The problem is we do not identify people that are not rehabitable.

Deterrence- It works for me. I'm way to cute to survive in prison.

Denunciation- Useless

Prevention- Almost impossible see rehabilitation

Deterrence is the only truly effective one. However, it is only serves to keep the honest people honest. That is why I lean towards retribution as it makes the deterrence even stronger.

I am for capital punishment in non-circumstantial cases. With clear-cut evidence I believe that the execution should be timely.

I believe the soft crimes (identity theft, scam artists, etc) should be punished harsher.

The question wasn't asked but here is my answer anyway. I have a real tough time with the prosecution of people under 18 as adults. As a society we set the age of majority (here in the U.S.) at 18. To prosecute children under that age as adults for political benefit is just wrong. I'm also not convinced that a horrible crime committed by a fourteen year old means they cannot be rehabilitated.

 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Sound familiar?

 

I'm a big fan of retribution -- I don't see it as low or inappropriate at all. They should suffer as they made others suffer. I'm also all for prevention in the sense that a filthy rapist who is behind bars is not able to rape. In that sense, I'd like to see a lot more Supermax style prisons built and these animals simply stockpiled and kept away from society. Rehabilitation is such a pipe dream, and some of these slimeballs have been working the system since they were little kids. A killer or rapist should NEVER have the chance to commit such a crime again. Sure, forgive them until you're blue in the face, but keep them away from my family and friends.

 

Retribution works, so long as the retribution is tough enough. Minor crimes should be punished by a thorough arse kicking (or something in that effect), that way people would feel less tempted to do anything of the sort again.

 

But "justice" isnt an eye for an eye, it is more like 2 eyes, 3 teeths and some fingers for an eye.

"Justice" is based upon the "you hurt society, society hurts you more" idea.

 

Retribution is unethical IMHO.

Rehabilitation: I'm with snook on this. But that does not mean that it is not working.

Deterrence does not work, because everyone who wants to commit a crime believes he will not get caught.

Prevention: I do not get your point.

 

Retribution: Should be limited to property crimes, IMHO, and the punishment should be equivalent to the ill-gotten gain. None of these piddly $300 million fines for banks that knowingly helped Enron steal BILLIONS, for example.

Rehabilitation: Nice in theory but how often does it work? Part of the problem is that people onthe outside aren't always willing to believe that the ciminal has truly been reformed, and lack of other opportunity can lead to more crime. A vicious cycle.

Deterrence: This is a natural follow-on to Rehabilitation. EDIT: My FIL thinks that suddenly executing EVERY prisoner who's currently on death row is the only real way such a sentence would ever be a deterrent. Right now there are too many years of appeals for it to be much of a threat, in HIS opinion.

Prevention: Always the best choice - give people better things to do than commit crimes.

 

If killing someone is punishable by death then the one carrying out the death penalty has himself earned the death penalty.
Is this the right way to uphold the sanctity of life?

 

Murdering someone is punishable, killing? depends

 

Just for the sake of throwing out other ideas, rehabilitation is the height of arrogance and an improper underpinning of the justice system. At least, that's what Kant would say.

The idea is, you have to have respect for others and their choices. A respect for their individuality and ability to think for themselves. Rehabilitation displays an inherrent lack of respect because it says, 'we don't respect the way you are, we're going to change you and mold you into a form that we prefer.'

Kant on the other hand, and other penologists I know, think the justice system should have certain consequences for certain actions not in an effort to rehabilitate but simply as a method of protecting society under a social contract. Citizens are made aware that doing 'x' results in 'y'. If they choose to do 'x' that is something chosen of their free will - who are we to try to alter the fundamental nature of another person, what arrogance (or so it goes) - instead we simply apply 'y' but respect the individual enough that we don't try to alter him or her.

The purpose under this understanding of punishment is deterrence (specific and general) and retribution - but due to the inherent worth of all people rehabilitation requires an improper judgment as it attempts to alter the way people should 'think' but the criminal system should only punish the way people 'act' not try to force people to 'think' certain ways. Should've had taht earlier but I'll end reitterating it - punish people for acts, but to try to force them to think certain ways shows an inherrent lack of respect for them as individuals.

Anyways, that's how some have thought.

 

Ever noticed that society, family, church and media do much of the same, they give you values.
Molding you into a form they prefer, it's also called brainwashing

 

Well, typically though, church for example, doesn't lock you in a small cell for a period of years in order to do that - you're free to leave and free to not listen. However, in prison you don't have the luxury of leaving. Also, prison is obviously the government while church is obviously not. Same story with the media - change the channel, you're free to do so. With family - you're free to go out on your own once you're old enough to be responsible.

What they find particularly troubling about using prison to alter the way people think is that it has the person as a captive and therefore has the ability to be coercive in a different way.

 

The Executioner is merely putting down a sick animal.

 

Laches, I'm talking about brainwashing young children

And no, they dont put you in a physical cell, more of a mental cell, its called mindset and it's made by society.

I wouldn't call it sick animal, just 'invalid'.

[ August 03, 2003, 19:04: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

If the crime in the first place was the taking of a human life, then the punishment can not be the taking of another human life, can it?

Trying to motivate it by saying it's a "sick animal" is plain stupid. If it was an attempt at a satirical joke, I completely missed it.
If a human is sick we try to cure her. Humans are allowed greater protection by the law than the other animals.

 

Retribution - I really don't see the point. Why waste time and money on it? It doesn't accomplish anything.

Rehabilitation - It's pretty effective for teenagers and children, not very effective for adults. I think Canada's Young Offenders Act, unpopular though it is, is a good approach - adult and child offenders are kept utterly separate so that the children and teenagers can not be "trained" to be better criminals by older convicts. Lots of effort should be put into rehabilitating the young ones, virtually none in rehabilitating the older ones. If you can reach age 18 without learning that stealing and hitting people is utterly inacceptable, you'll probably never learn it. I also second what Laches said.

Deterrence - Every study I've ever seen says there ain't no such thing as deterring by means of harsh punishment. Generally, the harsher the punishments in a given country, the higher the crime rate. The one deterrent that *does* work is greater surveillance to increase the likelihood of getting caught. I'm all for more cops patrolling beats, and security cameras in all public areas, like in Monaco.

Denunciation - I'm all for this. There's not enough of it these days. People seem comfortable saying terrible things to others about their political persuasions and sexual orientations, and then the same people discreetly look the other way when they see actual crimes (like CD burning) being committed.

Prevention - If just keeping people in prison is what you mean by this, then only for violent criminals. If you can't keep your hands to yourself, then you should be locked away for good, but putting thieves and drug-dealers in prison is a waste of time and money.

The one thing that is missing from this list is restitution. People who've wronged society in a non-violent way - vandals and thieves for example - owe society a debt. Putting them in prison, killing them, or scarring their buttocks does not pay back this debt. Community service and hard physical labour does. I'd like to see the "workfare" scheme that was apparently originated to punish unwed mothers revised and used for convicted thieves. They make just enough to live on and the rest of their earnings is used to compensate the victim or pay down the national debt. I also think that those who've committed a crime should lose all right to public services, everything from government-paid health care to the government old-age pension. If you choose not to be an upstanding member of society, taxpayers in that society don't owe you anything.

 

Prevention - Holding those that will re-offend in jail to prevent it. Lets look (for example) at Hannibal Lector. If he was released, he would go out and eat people. That's his nature (I know he's make beleive). Prevention means that after his time is served, he is kept in jail so that he cannot threaten society.

One of the case studies that I had to do was a man that got drunk and stoned on magic mushrooms the day that his son was being born. Then he went and raped a 12 year old while her 14 yearold sister watched, threatening her with a gun. His jail term was served, but he did not rehabilitate so they kept him in jail. Prevention.

Doesn't matter, I made it up so the assignment is done. But feel free to blow some steam in here.

 

The base question is:
Do we lock people up to save society or do we take the risk to let them learn the lesson and then put them free again.

This ofcourse depends upon the mindstate of the criminal, a person who is a danger to society would/should be removed out of harms way, the most prefered, death or lifelong sentence.

Death is a mercy(for me it is), lifelong sentence is based upon revenge, "you hurt society, society hurts you more".

 

And I don't think revenge is necessarily the best path to punishment. Vengeance just brings more harsh feelings, violence breeds more violence.

That's my point. Locking people up with violent criminals, whether they were violent criminals themselves to begin with or not, tends not to make them any less dangerous to society.

If anyone is to be rehabilitated, that is not something we can force upon them. Try reading "A Clockwork Orange" if you have not. Very good book on this subject.