Punishment in America Research Paper Essay

Abstract penalisation in America has mainly four goals Retri plainlyion (deserved penalization), Deterrence, Societal protective cover and renewal. Ultimately all this penalization argon aimed at maintaining social order, but the justification for the sentence be closely tied to the Ameri piece of ass set of arbiter and fairness. However the referee sought by offense dupes a lot conflicts with the fairness to the off set asideers. Its therefore important to none that while punishment in America is meant to correct the offender the effectiveness of method employ on the criminal crack the outcome to correct the anomaly. renewing justice has proved to be a new method of restoring justice among the offenders. base Punishment reflects the dominant values of particular moments in history. By the end of 1960s for example, the number of Americans who were sentenced to imprisonment decreased because of widespread commitment of rehabilitating offenders. By contrast since 1970 s record numbers of offenders have been sentenced to prison because of an focus of imposing strong punishment for the purposes of retribution, bullying and incapitation. At the beginning of twenty-first century voices ar calling for addition of restorative justice as a criminal sanction. According to George and Smith, 2005, there are mainly 4 types of punishment avenging/Deserved punishment, Deterrence, Societal protection and Rehabilitation.Effects of the 4 Types of PunishmentsRetribution/Deserved punishment Retribution is a punishment inflicted on a person who has infringed on the rights of others so deserve to be penalized. Retribution agent that those who have done a particular annoyance should be punished alike in proportion to the gravity of the abhorrence or the extent to which others have been made to suffer. In retribution punishment, offenders mustiness manufacture their debts. Some scholars claim that the desire for retribution is a basic tender emotion. They ma intain that if the state does not provide retributive sanctions to reflect companionship revolution at offensive acts, citizens testament take the law into their witness hands to punish offenders. Under this view the failure of government to fit the states desire for retribution could produce social chaos. use the concept of just deserts or deserved punishment to sterilise retribution, some theorists argue that one who infringes on the rights of others deserve to be punished. In this view, punishment should be only for the wrong inflicted and not primarily to touch other goals such as bullying, societal protection or reclamation (George and smith, 2005)Deterrence The roots of bullying are traced back in eighteenth century in England among the followers of social philosopher Jeremy Bentham. He adopted Benthams theory of utilitarianism, which holds that human demeanor is governed by the individuals calculation of the benefits versus the cost of his /her acts. before steali ng money for example, potential offenders would consider the punishment that others have original for similar acts would thereby be deterred. There are two types of deterrence general deterrence which presumes that members of the public on observing the punishment of others will conclude that the crime outweighs the benefits. For general deterrence to be effective, the public must be constantly reminded about the likelihood and severity of punishment for contrastive acts (George and smith, 2005) The punishment must be severe enough to instill care of the consequences of committing a crime. By contrast specific deterrence targets the decision and behavior of the offenders who have already been convicted. Under this approach, the amount and kind of punishment are calculated to discourage that criminal from repeating the offence. The punishment must be severe enough to cause the criminal to say the consequence of my crime were too painful, I will not commit another crime. The conce pt of deterrence has obvious difficulties (Nagin, 1998). Deterrence assumes that all people estimate before they act.As such deterrence does not account for people who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol or psychological disorder. The effectiveness of deterrence is limited as well (Nagin, 1998). A battlefield on deterrence effects of punishment would have to examine the impacts of different forms of criminal sanction on various potential lawbreakers. Therefore while legislation often cites deterrence as a rationale for veritable sanctions, no one really knows the extent to which sentencing policies based on deterrence achieve their objective.Societal protection This assumes that society can keep offenders from committing nevertheless crimes by detention in prison or by execution. Offenders can be confined within se redress institutions and effectively prevented from committing additional impose on _or_ oppress against society for the duration of their sentenc e. Capital punishment is the ultimate method of societal protection. Research has suggested that a relatively small number of offenders commit a large number of violence and property crimes (George and smith, 2005). Questions arise about how to determine the length of the sentence. Presumably offenders will not be released until the state is veritable that they will no longer commit crimes. Therefore the limit of this punishment is that it cannot predict accurately which offenders will commit more crime upon release.Rehabilitation This refers to the goal of restoring a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some form of training or therapy. Americans regard to believe that offenders can be delicacyed and resocialised in ways that accept them to lead a crime free productive life upon release. all over the last hundred years, rehabilitation advocates have argued for techniques that they claim identify and treat the causes of criminal behavior. Rehabilitatio n focuses on the offender. Its objective does not imply whatsoever consistent relationship between the severity of the punishment and the gravity of the crime .according to concept of rehabilitation, offenders are treated, not punished and they are returned to the society when they are cured. Studies on the results of rehabilitation have challenged the idea that criminal offenders can be cured (Margolis, 1974).Conclusion The above methods have proved to be not too effective and the new approach to punishment is restorative justice. Restorative justice view crime as more than a impact of penal law. The criminal act practically and symbolically denies the community. This approach means that losses suffered by the crime victim are restored and the threat to the topical anaesthetic safety is removed and the offender again becomes a fully dynamic member of the community. Shifting the focus to restorative justice requires a lead way approach that involves the offender, the victim and t he community. This approach may include intermediation in which the three actors devise ways that all agree are fair and just for the offender to repair the harm done to victim and community.ReferencesGeorge, F. C. and Smith E.G, (2005) Criminal Justice in America, Criminology, 4th Edition.Nagin, D.1998 Criminal deterrence research at the onset of the twenty-first century crime and justice review of research, Vol. 23.Margolis, E.1974 The effectiveness of rehabilitation punishment as a cure for crime, research paper.