The Most Appropriate Justification for Punishment - Coursework Example

Topic: Appropriate justification for punishment Number: What is the most appropriate justification for punishment: deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation or incapacitation? Discuss with reference to the changing historical context of punishment. Societies, over time, have always had disciplinary measures for undesirable behavior, which mostly happens within social institutions such as families, schools, churches or correction centers. Someone in authority always administers punishment over a junior person, for behavior that they consider inappropriate. Therefore, punishment is a response to unusual behavior or crimes in societies and usually takes the form of either formal or informal ways of administration. Formally, the authority figures utilize systematized laws such as civil law suits while informally, the society uses social groups such as peer groups to correct an individual (Bonta & Andrews, 2010, p.58). Conversely, at the informal level, social systems are employed and this touches on families, friends or peers. Punishments vary in the severity, depending on the extent of their consequences in the society, and may include reprimands, ostracism, sanctions, incarcerations, fines, death penalties, or deprivation of privileges (Michael, 2001, p.99). Incapacitation, deterrence, education, rehabilitation, and retribution are the principal punishment justifications (Lippman, 2009, p.82). Deterrence, also referred to as prevention is a disciplinary procedure used to avoid offenses. Through deterrence, those who commit offenses are deterred from reoffending while those contemplating the offense are deterred from trying to commit these offenses (David, 2002, p. 11). The goal of this punishment is to scare people from committing crimes or they face the punishment. Authority figures on the other hand, use rehabilitation for reform purposes. This form of punishment rehabilitates the wrong doer and prevents them from committing the crimes again. In this case, the punishment changes the wrong doer’s attitude and makes them realize that what they do is wrong, and helps them stop it. For the sake of protecting the society, law makers use incapacitation as a form of punishment. In this case, the society engages in several methods to remove the ability of the offender to engage in future offenses (David, 2002, p.13), which includes imprisonments, amputations or death penalties. In most criminal activities, the offender usually gains while the victim of the offense looses. For the sake of retributive justice, retribution is necessary; to create a balance between the offender and the victim and ensure the offender suffers (David, 2002, p.15). Another reason for punishment is restoration, where the offender makes right whatever they have committed. Penalties for restoration are minor, and may include compensation or community services. In addition to these, there are other reasons for punishments such as education, which instills discipline to the society’s norms and values. Punishment has received much attention from scholars of various fields, specifically, philosophy and psychology. In Psychology, operant conditioning is most associated with punishment. Operant conditioning introduces the aspect of response-stimuli conditioning and learning through reinforcement (Nevid, 2011, p.183). In this context, punishment refers to the act of reducing behavior by applying an adverse stimulus or removing a pleasant stimulus. This concept is useful in understanding the justifications for punishments because they basic goal is to reduce or remove unpleasant behavior from the organism (Blackman, 1974, p.77). Over the years, civilization has changed the methods and perception of punishment. The rationale behind every punishment method is that its degree should fit the crime. The consequence of a crime to the society is used to assess and formulate the most suitable punishment (Hugo, 2010, p. 87). Every type of punishment has its purpose and this mainly includes: rehabilitating offenders, deterrence, retribution and incapacitation (Jenkins, 1984, p.15). In an attempt to prevent people from engaging in criminal activities, authorities may induce punishment to discourage offenders from repeating the offence or deter people who may contemplate doing the offence. A closer look at the methods and application of punishment reveals that over time, they have changed. In agrarian societies, it was uncommon to hear of formal sanctions while in modern societies the state’s formal sanctions are common (Marvin, 2010, p.63). There are also variations among the use of specific sanctions in different countries, over a period. Within the current world systems, global economies and multinational penetration, it is crucial to investigate punishment from their historical perspectives, as this challenges peoples’ beliefs of what is good and evil (Lippman, 2009, p.98). In order to control behavior, which violates social norms, all societies come up with ways to punish offenders. The most basic type of social control is socialization as it focuses on ensuring members conform to the laws by learning and internalization of norms, as a personal choice. Through socialization, members of the society get used to doing the right thing; therefore, will find it awkward when they deviate. Another way to achieve social control is by using external forces that force individuals to obey laws such as the use of threats (Tonry, 2010, p. 103). Despite these methods of achieving conformity, it is ultimate that threat of sanctions is a sure way of achieving conformity. Sanctions vary in source and nature. To encourage conformity to societal norms, authorities may use positive sanctions, while punishments that discourage violations are negative sanctions. They also vary in their forms and magnitude such as small fines or death, or physical restraints. In traditional societies, it was common to use aversive methods as punishments such as death, amputation or an individual would be banned from the society. Once an offender was ostracized, it would be difficult for the society to accept them back, or for them to lead normal lives once they come back to the community. This is particularly hard because it disrupts the individual’s social and economic life. However, this has changed tremendously as many communities rarely ostracize their member. The functions of punishments rely on the political, economic or social conditions in that society (Hugo, 2010, p.78). Positive sanctions act as rewards for positive behavior, which encourages members to behave appropriately at all times. They also acts as a way of teaching members of the society that the society appreciates positive behavior while it punishes negative behavior. In societies that are undifferentiated and small, or those governed through value consensus, the primary use of punishments is to maintain status or control social relations in order to preserve the social order. On the other hand, civil or criminal sanctions are effective in a more diversified society in order to protect interests or maintain order (Lyons, 2003, p.47). Over time, authorities have designed criminal sanctions for multiple purposes such as deterring individuals from repeating offense or serving as an example, incapacitating convicted offenders, and rehabilitating offenders (Stohr, Walsh, & Craig, 2008, p. 114). Additionally, societies use them to reinforce collective values. The basic function of sanctions in reference to conflict perspectives is to protect the interests of authority holders. For example, there are arguments that the function of a criminal law is to criminalize the greedy dealings of those without power, while legitimize the same for those in power (Bonger, 1916, p.56). Machiavelli’s comment that a handkerchief thief goes to jail while someone who steals a country is crowned as duke, emphasize the same idea. In this sense, the conflict theorists saw social control as a means for those in power to gain authority over goods and services, in order to control dissent. Additionally, sanctions are also social engineering tools, directed towards social change. However, the aims of social engineering vary in various theoretical perspectives. Within a functionalist perspective, the aims of social engineering are social integration and obtaining harmony, which emphasizes interdependency, stability, and collective solidarity (Willem, 1916, p.65). To conflict theorists, the goals include controlling dissent and social integration are the main goals. Existing social conditions in a society usually shape the nature of criminal and civil laws in that society. Emile Durkheim supports the existence of a strong link between the structure of society and punishment, by arguing that types of solidarities vary in different types of societies (Hamilton, 1990, p.134). Small, undifferentiated societies are most common in primitive legal systems, which most people refer to as early tribal laws (Miethe, & Lu Hong, 2005, p.63). In such societies, informal sanctions maintain social order. Scholars of informal sanctions are associate it with the society’s traditions, norms and shared customs, and argue that they protect and reflect the most important of the society’s beliefs and values. In such societies, people view punishment as an automatic and natural reaction to deviant behavior (Levinson, 2002, p.441). Since the birth of civilization, the most dominant models of punishment were reciprocity and obedience. Despite this, Durkheim argues that under definite conditions, punishments also serve as social rituals for reaffirming the community member’s commitments to their values (Hamilton, 1990, p.98). Durkheim argues that in homogenous societies, where there is mechanical solidarity, there is always repressive justice, which those in authority use in denouncing evil or reaffirming values. However, tribal societies have slowly disappeared due to social forces such as urbanization, increased population, heterogeneity, modernization, and industrialization. As societies go through a transition, new forms of maintaining order develop. First, the state as an institution is developed in which laws are enforced, depending on geographical locations, rather than kinship (Blomberg, & Lucken, 2010, p.71). Similarly, deviance and crime become a public matter, as opposed to a personal harm as tribal societies viewed it. When societies are in the transitional stage, social order and law become precarious. Because of the complexity and diversity of modern societies, it is impossible to think that only informal sanctions can regulate and maintain order. In this context, societal integration demands a comprehensive legal system that responds to the changing economical and political conditions. In the context of deterrence, it is possible to judge the effectiveness of punishment. Studies examine the possibility that certain punishments deter offenders from repeating the offence, or prevent others from committing offense (Phillip, 1999, p.49). Further death penalty studies obtain the chance to scrutinize the effectiveness of as a tool for social change. The historical use of the death penalty as a measure of controlling dissent and a general strategy for deterrence has been a subject of much investigation. Social differences such as race and gender have also attracted attention in the court systems, especially in the United States of America (Howe, 1994, p.127). In such cases, in such cases, males and African Americans are most affected by differential treatment (Gabbidon, 2009, p. 111). The behavioral theory of law bases an examination of differential treatment on the criminal sanctions. The theory argues that the styles and quantities of law vary in specific aspects of social life. When law is applied to individuals of low ranks, it has a penal style while it becomes compensatory when applied on people of higher ranks Gilman, & Levy, 2005, p.78). For people in the same ranks, the law is used in a conciliatory style. The theory is associated with Donald Blacks, and is useful in the comparative analysis of differential legal actions among varied political and social contexts. Anthropologists express varied opinions over traditional authority structures such as a tribal council, kinship, or religious institutions. Traditionally, there would be a change in religious leadership depending on the nature of the ritual, therefore, at times; the judgment of religious leaders would be questionable. Additionally, in traditional societies, punishment was meant to make the offender suffer while in contemporary societies, the emphasis is on correcting the behavior and deterring future offenses. To prevent injustices associated with traditional punishment justifications, the contemporary societies place a lot of considerations before punishing an individual (Richard, 2006, p.61). These considerations include the age of the offender, past offenses, the severity of the crime and the legal and human rights of the offender (Maguire & Okada, 2010, p.73). Today, those in authority methodically develop a criminal case independently by reviewing the criminal’s characteristics such as health and social environments. Types of punishments in the traditional societies would include exile, death, supernatural punishments, death, and physical punishments (Marvin, 2010, p.52). Despite the importance of punishment for crime in the modern society, it is inaccurate to look at punishment as a uniform or automatic answer to specific types of misconducts. At any given point in time, historical, political, social, and economic conditions reflect the legal treatment in any society (Miethe & Lu Hong, 2005 p.85). For example, some cultures may accept or consider certain behaviors such as political corruption or adultery while the same could be considered vile in other cultures. In addition to this, there could be variations of seriousness within the same country or cultures over time. This emphasizes the agreement that the acceptance of different methods of punishments for various offenses is context-specific. In historical periods, especially in England, the United States, and China, drug offenses were capital crimes (Ross, & Clarke, S.T., 2010, p.111). Over the years, this has changed and the severity of punishments has reduced too. To offer a strong comparative analysis of punishments, it is vital to identify the patterns that remain vigorous over time and space, and those that transcend both the historical and comparative contexts. One such pattern involves the study of the use of lethal and nonlethal punishments in various cultures such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and China (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010, p.143). The United States is highly industrialized and has laws that reflect Western European traditions. In comparison, China represent Eastern culture, with a socialist legal system due to its experience with economic and political upheavals while Saudi Arabia is legal system reflects the Islamic faith and culture. A comparison of the three countries provides a diversified and comprehensive historical analysis of penalties. It would be difficult to decide on which of the above justifications is most appropriate for punishing wrong doers. This is because each of the justifications is appropriate. To have a safe and stable society, lawmakers need to use the necessary strategies to deter people from engaging in vices. Additionally, compensation is necessary for victims of crimes and that brings in retribution. In cases where the consequences of crimes are too severe on the society or it perceives the offender as a future danger to the society’s peaceful existence, it becomes necessary to eliminate the offender or his/her ability to commit the crime (Gabbidon, 2009, p. 132). As long as the punishment is not draconian, it is necessary, once there is proof that the individual is guilty. Deterrence would be the most appropriate justification for punishment because punishment should make crimes stop. In cases where the perpetrator is responsible for committing crime, it is warranted to administer punishment. Otherwise in cases where there are legitimate reasons to overlook the action, then punishment is not warranted (Seymour, 1971, p.122). People always have choices, and they are responsible for the choices they make. Despite this, there are excusable choices, those that could not be avoided by anyone else in similar circumstances. Individuals should not view punishment as revenge or vengeance. Vengeance differs from punishment in that it is exacted on the perpetrators’ loved ones. Additionally, vengeance is exacted on acts that were excusable. Briefly, it is essential to note that no society can exist without a social control measure. Traditional societies had their own ways of correcting behaviors, some that were considered archaic and dehumanizing. This was before the institution of governments and other institutions. The transition of societies from traditional to modern has also seen a change in punishments. Scholars of types of societies such as Emile Durkheim argue that to deal with the complexities of modern societies, there must be changes to the modes, reasons, and application of punishments (Hamilton, 1990, p.124). Modern problems, which differ from traditional problems demand changes on punishments. Problems such as increase in population, scarcity of resources, together with those related to modernization and urbanization, cannot be solved through primitive means that were effective in agrarian societies. This paper has explained the various reasons given for punishments, in reference to its changing historical context. To scrutinize the effectiveness of punishment, deterrence is used. Additionally, an investigation to the use of death the penalty over the years reveals the changing context of punishment. There are also arguments that punishments are based on certain social differences such as gender, economic ability, and race. Finally, the paper discusses punishment by offering examples of views of crimes in three different countries; China, the United States and Saudi Arabia. References Miethe, D. T. & Lu Hong. (2005) Punishment: a comparative historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hamilton Peter. (1990) Emile Durkheim: critical assessments, Volume2. Michigan: Routledge Levinson, D. (2002) Encyclopedia of crime and punishment: New York: SAGE Tonry, H. M. (2010). Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bonger, W. (1916). Criminality and Economic Conditions. Boston: Little Brown. Maguire, M. & Okada,D. (2010) Critical Issues in Crime and justice: Thought, policy and practice. New York: SAGE Lippman, R. M. (2009). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases and controversies. New York: SAGE. Jenkins,P. (1984). Crime and justice: Issues and ideas. New York: Brooks Publishers. Hugo, A.B. (2010). Punishment, Crime and the State. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gilman, A. & Levy, R. (2005). Crime and culture: an historical perspective. New York: Ashgate Publishing Gabbidon, L. S.(2009) Race, ethnicity, crime, and justice: an international dilemma. New York: SAGE. Hugo, A.B. (2010). Theory of Punishment. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pollock, M. J. (2011). Crime and Justice in America: an introduction to criminal justice. New York: Elsevier Phillip,R. (1999). Crime and power: a history of criminal justice. Michigan: Longman Stohr, M., Walsh,A.& Craig,H. (2008). Corrections: A Text/Reader. New York: Sage. Blomberg, G. T. & Lucken, K. (2010). American penology: a history of control. New York: transaction books. Howe, A. (1994). Punish and critique: towards a feminist analysis of penalty. New York: Routledge. Seymour, H. (1971). Psychiatry and the dilemmas of crime: a study of causes. California: University of California. Richard, G.C. (2006). Discipline without punishment: the proven strategy that turns problem employees into superior performers. New York: AMACOM Jerome,S.T., Malcom,F. & McCoy,C. (2004). Criminal justice: introductory cases and materials. Indiana University: Foundation Press. Ross,P.D. & Clarke, S.T. (2010). Social development. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Jeffrey,N.S. (2011). Essentials of psychology: concepts and applications. New York: Cengage. Bonta, J. & Andrews, A. D. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. New York: Elsevier. Marvin,B.H. (2010). Reasons for Abolishing Capital Punishment. New York: Kessinger. Michael,K. (2001) Capital punishment: a reference handbook. New York: ABC-CLIO Blackman, E. D. (1974). Operant conditioning: an experimental analysis of behavior. New York: Routledge Lyons,L. (2003). The history of punishment. Guilford: Lyons press Read More