The Justification of Punishment against Offenders - Essay Example

Running head: JUSTIFICATION OF PUNISHMENT The Justification of Punishment against Offenders You're There are many judicial theories in behind the reasoning for the necessity of penal punishment against criminal offenders. This research examines the issues for why legal punishment is necessary to restore justice to society and keep some form of social control over the many communities in the UK. One of the best theories that are examined in this research is based on restorative justice. This research will define how restorative justice actually works in many ways, one of which it takes into account both the offender and the victim. It gives a good idea as to why punishment is an essential tool of the judicial process. This research will adamantly define the facts surrounding punishment. It is already generally conceptualized that without a reliable way to punish offenders crime would escalate to uncontrollable proportions. This is just one of the reasons for the use of punishment as a penal tool and why it is utilized by the legal system. In conclusion, this research again emphasizes upon the fact that criminal actions can be controlled and minimized with the proper form of punishment. Furthermore, the conclusive evidence at the end of this research defines the fact that, as has been said, punishment is indeed crucial to law enforcement officials in gaining control over crime and maintaining a more peaceful atmosphere for the general public at large. The Justification of Legal Punishment against Offenders Restorative justice is one idea of how to relate the theory of punishment to the maintenance of legal control over criminal offenders. Although restorative justice in itself has not been shown to minimize crime, it has been helpful in bringing a relative relation between the victim and the offender and what punishments are best suited to fit the criminal actions of an offender as well (Strang 2005). The main difference between this form of justice and conventional methods is the fact that there is more of a mediating process involved to solve the problems leading to crime in the communities rather than focusing solely on the state as the main victim of criminal offenders, such as the conventional method does (Goulding 2005). It has been found that the main goal of restorative justice is to correct the harm within communities that has been caused by criminal actions placed onto them by the offenders. There is still a process of punishment associated with this new area of the judicial process but it is focused on a more humane way of dealing with crime rather than corporal punishment, or other harsher sentencing, etc (Goulding 2005). However, to some in society this is a positive attribute being added to the judicial system and to others (especially law enforcement personnel) it is neglecting the proper way to control and combat crime as there are those in the judicial system that still feel severe punishments are justifiable for certain criminal actions and therefore should be continued in order to properly control crime (Goulding 2005). Nevertheless, restorative justice does have its benefits and it is effectively being used to try and determine what rehabilitative treatment methods are best for preventing offenders from repeating their criminal behavior patterns in society. Also, in regards to punishment and treatment, restorative justice has the offender become a participant in these decisions. The offender is allowed to voice what treatment and punishment that they feel would be the best solution and penalty for their criminal actions. Researchers are defining this as a positive characteristic of this form of justice because there have been hints that allowing the offender to be a part of the justice process in a more active manner can increase the statistics that they will not continue their actions in a repetitive pattern but will rather conform to societal rules depicted by the legal process (Goulding 2005). Those in favor of restorative justice argue that this form of the penal process allows the offender to see what their criminal actions have done to the victim so that they are truly aware of what they have caused, conventional methods do not allow for this and it has been voiced that it is possibly one of the reasons that offenders re-offend once released from prison. By placing the responsibility for their actions back onto the offender they develop a true sense of the adverseness of their actions onto another human being or community. Although it has not been proven, there is a strong theory that this form of justice retracts the rate of offenders repeating their behavior at a high percentage. Therefore, to a certain degree it can not be denied that it works in preventing some from re-offending (Goulding 2005). So as a form of more humane punishment and rehabilitation it is not perceived in a wholly negative fashion because there are quite a few positive attributes to this process. Furthermore, it is claimed that the punishments that restorative justice doles out to the offenders makes them have to face up to their criminal actions in a more profound manner than simply sitting in a prison cell can do (Wilson 2004). For example, one case of drunk driving that resulted in the death of the victim lead to the punishment of the offender having to carry a picture of the victim for five consecutive years, pay $50 a month to the daughter of the victim, and write apologetic letters to the family left behind as well (Wilson 2004). It is stated that this form of punishment is harsher than any form of corporal or conventional punishment could ever be because it really enforces the realization of the offenders' actions into their minds so that they hopefully won't become repeat offenders. So, as is being emphasized the reason for penal punishment is obvious. In order to try and have these offenders truly understand the nature of their actions they must be punished and reprimanded, sometimes harshly, so that they will change their behaviors and improve upon themselves in order to function in society as law abiding citizens instead of criminals. Nevertheless, there are opposing views and police officers themselves say the sentences passed down through the process of restorative justice are to light and ultimately neglecting the victims from receiving proper justice by disallowing for harsher punishment of the offender. However there are those that view how the police treat criminals as undeservedly harsh and the police's attitudes towards punishment in particular is seen as rather conservative. Even so, a social representation theory defines the actions of the police as something that is vitally needed in order to prevent crime from escalating and therefore their attitudes can not be considered to be contradictory to what the majority of society needs and wants in order to deter criminals from re-offending (Fielding & Fielding 2006). In many ways these thoughts give pause to what many think and feel about punishment in society because as the following quote shows, restorative justice in itself does not necessarily focus on the regulations of the law but rather the offender and the victim and then the consequences of the crime that took place. Some feel this simply is not enough. With Restorative Justice, the emphases is not on following the rules, it is on right relationships rather than right rules. The aim is the restoration or creation of good relationships between the offender, the victim, and the community, so that all parties feel satisfied with the outcome of the justice process and so that the undesirable event is less likely to be repeated (Hudson 2003). Furthermore, it is defined that for to many years the idea of punishment was passed off as best served as a method of quarantine. In this regard, what is meant is that offenders where best punished by being put in prison and left to meditate on their actions but in recent years the criminal justice system has found that more intense forms of punishment are necessary to minimize the risks associated with crime (Kyron 2003). Therefore more severe penalties have become a necessity to many minds in the legal system. The following quote emphasizes this point more clearly, "Police officers are also fed up with such soft sentencing. Restorative sentencing offers no deterrent to those seeking to perpetrate crimes" (Wilson 2004). Therefore some judicial authorities and citizens feel that traditional methods would be better served to minimize crime more so than restorative justice does. Regardless of which means is used the focus is on the fact that punishment is a necessity which is minimally open for debate. In order to correctly implement punishment into the judicial process, the ethics of the criminal process have to be considered as well. The judicial system can not just punish an offender without first ensuring it is going to properly control crime. Therefore there are other means of punishment besides the theory of restorative justice and the more conventional means of passing penal punishment as well (Marshall 2004). One idea of an alternative means of punishment is known as "Communicative punishment" and it is in favor of the victim more so than the offender's needs (Marshall 2004). The communicative process is a multi-step one, going through the criminal proceedings in criminal court, and forcing the offender to accept the responsibility of his or her actions against the victim and the public at large as well. Often the victim is included in these proceedings during the sentencing stage and further into the punishment stage as well with the victim having some say so of what form of punishment should be placed onto the offender. It is very similar to the restorative justice process but harsher to some degrees. Of course the main objective of this legal process is to try and protect the victim from any further form of criminal intent by the offender and of course to keep the offender from repeating their criminal behavior again. The main goal of any penal process is to limit and control criminal actions of individuals, and again this is defining the fact that punishment is necessary in order to carry this theorization out. An offender who goes unpunished would ultimately have no reason to not commit that same crime again, and in that regard the judicial system would be failing not only the public but those who commit crime as well (Marshall 2004). Furthermore, for years the idea of punishment in the criminal process has been to ensure social stability, and one way which has been utilized for over 30 years is with the utilization of incarceration, regardless of whether it has faced opposition in the context of whether it is a reliable way of restoring justice and doling out punishment or not (Ruddell & Fearn 2005). It has faced many opposing views in the past and in the present but it still remains one of the main forms of controlling deviant people. This can be proven as through an investigative study carried out by Blumstein and Cohen, it was found that many nations all over the world still utilized the framework of incarceration as a definitive means of stabilizing society and minimizing those who would commit criminal acts against states and individuals (Ruddell & Fearn 2005). It would seem that incarceration in itself has worked as a penal punishment method within the conceptualization that it has maintained some form of social control in keeping the crime rate minimal although this form of punishment in itself has not been found to be reliable enough to minimize crime efficiently (McGarrell 1993). The police force themselves are aware of the social need of controlling and preventing crime and it is one of their ultimate goals to protect the many citizens in Britain, and the surrounding UK from forms of crime. The police force, working in unison with the judicial system tries to resolve and find resolutions to refrain individuals from engaging in criminal actions. It is of course found that the police believe that punishment of deviant individuals is absolutely necessary to maintain societal control in communities. Many in society realize the value of the police force and their views are in correlation with the police in the regard that punishment of criminals must be carried out. The role the police play in assisting in the punishment of deviant characters and in working with the judicial system is clearly shown in the following quote, The police system performs a function of symbolic protection far beyond its specific role as an apparatus of a selective regulation of social risks It is most of all on the symbolic level that the institutions of authority, with all their show, ritual, prescriptions, and even codes of manners and etiquettes satisfy a latent need for social protection and spread gratifying sensation of order and security (Loader 1997). Clearly, it is shown that, as has been mentioned in the body of this research, the main reason for punishment of criminals is to protect and serve those in society. It is used as a means of trying to control and combat crime and eventually minimizing it completely. However, there are many other means of punishment that are used besides the presence of the police force in the communities and incarcerating individuals. Although rehabilitative punishments and treatments work for some criminal offenders, there are some that require harsher forms of punishment, and this does define the fact that punishment, especially forms of capital punishment do work to deter criminal behaviors. One example is in the case of Timothy McVeigh who was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombings. He stated himself that rehabilitative treatment, (such as the idea of restorative justice) would have been futile to deter him from his criminal intentions. Therefore harsher punishment is something that is of a necessity at times, for the safeguarding of society (BBC News: Talking Point 2001). There have been a wave of correctional approaches which have been developed and tried multiple times in the respect of "causation theories". Past theories such as moralistic ones agreed with punishment and viewed it as a "retribution" for those affected by crime. Even though more hidden today this is an attitude that still exists. Society strongly believes that forms of punishment against criminals are the only logical solutions to battle crime efficiently. Punishment to fit crime has been historic and it began with the philosophy of Jerry Bentham who believed that criminals could only learn to change their criminal behavior by being penalized for their actions and correctly punished. Bentam's point was to make the pain from punishment much more severe than the thrill of committing crime in hopes that once the criminal was possibly rehabilitated the crime would not be repeated (Encarta Online 1997-2005). Therefore, from decades past up until this current decade, punishment has been incorporated into the judicial system and has been shown to be efficient in maintaining a certain degree of social order and control over criminals. In conclusion, this research has proven that punishment comes in many forms, but regardless of the many different types of theories the idea is that it is a from of crime prevention that must exist in the judicial system. Without proper punishment of offenders then the states and cities all around the world would become ravaged by crime sprees due to the fact the criminals would never be reprimanded or punished appropriately. Punishment is something that should never be limited in power within the structure of the legal system because without it there would be a pertinent piece of the justice system gone forever. The fear is that crime would become overwhelming, and for that one reason the theory of punishment remains as a legal process. References BBC News. (2001). Can a Capital Punishment Conviction ever be Safe BBC News: Talking Point, retrieved 15 May 2006 http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1322807.stm Encarta Online. (2005). Criminology. Encarta Encyclopedia, retrieved 15 May 2006 http://www.uk.encarta.msn.com Fielding, Nigel & Fielding, Jane. (1991, 05 May). Police Attitudes to Crime and Punishment. The British Journal of Criminology, Vol 31, 39-53. Goulding, Dorothy. (2005, 04 April). Restoration or Renovation Evaluating Restorative Justice Outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law Journal Hudson, B. (2003 2nd Ed). Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives, and Controversies in Penal Theory. Buckingham Open University Press. Kyron, Huigens. (2003, 22 September). Dignity and Desert in Punishment Theory. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Loader, Ion. (1997, 01 March). Policing and the Social Question: Questions of Symbolic Power. The British Journal of Sociology, Vol 48 1-18. Marshall, S.E. (2004, 22 June). Communicative Punishment and the Role of the Victim. Journal of Criminal Justice Ethics McGarrell, Edmund. (1993, 01 March). Institutional Theory and the Stability of a Conflict Model of the Incarceration Rate. Justice Quarterly, Vol 10, (1): 7-28. Ruddell, Rick & Fearn, Noelle. (2005, 01 November). The Stability of Punishment Hypothesis Revisited: A Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Comparative Criminology, Vol 5, (1): 1-28. Strang, Heather. (2005, 01 October). Letter: Restorative Justice. The Independent Wilson, Kate. (2004, 23, January). Perspective: Victims of Crime need the Restoration of Justice. The Birmingham Post Read More