Posted at 11.24.2018
Case Research 2: The goal of Abuse within the legal justice system. What role will punishment serve within the legal justice system? Consider the part enjoyed by reductivism, incapacitation, retribution, deterrence and treatment as by-products of the perceived need for the legal justice system to punish offenders. How have political regulations and other ideologies damaged the state emphasis on the necessity to punish offenders?
In the following paragraphs it is going to be described the role of abuse within the criminal justice system. Furthermore, we are going to try theories and goals related to punishment such as: reductivism, deterrence, treatment, incapacitation and finally retribution.
Beginning our case study we must argue that there is extensive controversy over the effectiveness of punishment in lowering crime, but whether or not its actual effectiveness, still is the only method getting used conforming someone who made a misdeed, back again to society and liberty. "Punishment can be simply defined as a legitimately approved method made to facilitate the task of offense control'' (Carrabine, 2004), and its own main goal is to rehabilitate the offender, expiate the sufferer and dissuade others from becoming wrongdoers. In order to successfully generate a holistic take on the matter, we have to focus on many punishment perspectives and theories as it is the only way for a critical evaluation. "abuse as a cultural institution can be an inherently sophisticated business that should be approached from a range of theoretical perspectives as no interpretation will understanding the diverse meanings generated by consequence" (Carrabine, 2004).
The reductive theory of abuse justifies that punishment occurs because it really helps to prevent and reduce future consequences of crime, performing as a forward-looking theory for the general good. Moreover, promises that if abuse occurs, future offense will be significantly less than if no penalty were inflicted. "For abuse to lessen future offences, the pain and unhappiness induced to the offender must be outweighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other folks in the foreseeable future" (Cavadino, 2002). Therefore, this is a moral action against bad guys (famously advanced by Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832) since it produces the greatest happiness of the best number of people. Nevertheless, there a wide range of mechanisms of reduction which is shown below.
Deterrence based on utilitarian ideas, is a method of reduction and its main perspective is the fact if you cause someone's fear, then he will be afraid to offend and break regulations (tough on crime). Moreover, separates deterrence into basic and specific justifying that general is when punishment dissuades others from following a offender's example, regardless of individual deterrence which aspires to instruct delinquent not to repeat the behaviour. Deterrence lacks to create strong and validate evident of its efficiency as no certain charges prevented someone from committing a given crime.
What is more, discussing the average person deterrence, my view is that people cannot say whether or not an offender halted his criminal behaviour, simply because not all crimes are being convicted. Also, regarding to official offense statistics, I believe, there is not such performance as Michael Howards backed about jail/punishment and toughness on crime. 'Prison works. It ensures that we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists- and it creates many who are tempted to commit criminal offenses think double' (Michael Howard, Home Secretary 1993).
Rehabilitation is another system of crime lowering which is going to be produced and evaluated on the next paragraphs. Matching to rehabilitation the thought of punishment is to use treatment to the offender so that he is made capable later to return back again to the world as a law-abiding member. Rehabilitation is viewed as a humane alternative looking at 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 important feature of rehabilitation is that the offender could stick to probation whether which means outside prison or inside until he is regarded as ready. Critics though assume that if the jail administrator is the in charge one who makes a decision if offender made a improvement and he's ready to go, then corruption might occur which will falsify the real situation. Finally, another concern is an offender guilty for slight crime probably could not tolerate long detentions simple because of incapability or refusal to adopt a subservient frame of mind toward prison officers and authority in general.
Continuing our research we will make reference to retributive theory which is altogether antithesis of reductivism and justifies that punishment came as consequence of criminality. "A good feature is that retributivism is an all natural connection between your retributive methodology and the theory that both offenders and subjects have rights. Reductivist theory always founds it difficult to encompass the idea of rights, even though it involves providing entirely innocent people with a right not to be punished. Retributivism has no such problem, since it comes after automatically from the retributive basic principle it must be incorrect to punish non-offenders".
Criminals, according to retributivist theory deserve the abuse because in some way, evil for evil somehow make a right. Additionally, relating to retributivism, seriousness of a punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence (tariff). What is more, retributive punishment, argues that applies fairly and equally to all or any of us so long as we all reside in the same equilibrium followed by the same norms and values. The main issue with such a theory is the fact that it might be objective only when we were all sincerely equal showing the same advantages. "Detected offenders typically start from a position of social downside" (Cavadino, 2002). As soon as retributive punishment tries to inflict equality rebuilding the balance, then raises inequality alternatively than do the contrary.
The last theory identifies the act of earning the offender not capable of committing a criminal offenses and is recognized as the incapacitation theory. Corresponding 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 consequence though unfortunately makes it difficult to recognize that kind of offenders. Thus, it is extremely controversial the rule of incapacitation especially to prospects who assist that punishment should advocate similar retribution accompanied by dignity. An important controversial example assessing incapacitation is the chemical-castration of love-making offenders (against children) with hormonal drugs that was first implemented in the U. S of California in 1996 and demonstrated that drugs by itself didn't make the offender incapable of committing sex crimes.
To conclude, I would like to state that I have not come to a summary yet on if punishment actually helps and rehabilitates the delinquents. But I am certain that punishment up to now is the function which separates those who live legally and those who do not. I also assume that worries of abuse changes people behaviour a great deal, as most of us fear so much punishment. . . is the fact not true? Finally, I would like to finish with Sir Thomas Mores opinion which confirms me totally arranged. "Society first creates thieves, and then punishes them for stealing. There has always been around a curiously symbolic romantic relationship between the unlawful and society. It isn't a lot that modern culture tolerates crime, alternatively the structure of society inevitably creates situations and circumstances where offense occurs"(Weisser, 1979).