Criminal Justice System in Criminology - Coursework Example

Philosophy of Punishment Punishment is referred to the act of adding something negative or positive to an individual’s environment to alter or put a stop to his/her behavior because that particular behavior is recognized as deviant by the society (Sanders, 2010, p.42). The decision of whether the punishment should be pleasant or negative in nature is in the hands of the hands of an authoritative figure or authoritative group. Punishment can be both formal and informal in nature, formal punishment takes place when it is assigned by a nation’s law enforcement agency or criminal justice system and punishment becomes informal in nature when it is assigned by informal institutions such as families. Punishment is justified through the philosophy of retribution, deterrence and incapacitation. Certain nations believe in one kind of philosophy while others favor other kinds of philosophy. While punishment philosophy may vary depending on nations, it even varies depending on crimes and the outcomes that the justice system wants to achieve. For example: nations that have applied death penalty have done so with the aim of deterring crime and the same law may be considered as revenge for the victim. Certain criminal justice systems believe in retributive form of punishment because these systems are of the view that the criminal should be punished in accordance to his/her crime (Slapper, 2012, p.381). For example: in Arab nation a criminals hand is cut off if he steals and is even assigned death penalty for committing a murder. These nations believe that revenge is the best policy and the criminal should experience similar amount of pain as experienced by the victim. This paper will pay emphasis to different philosophies of punishment and a comparison will be conducted between these philosophies and their effectiveness. Body There are various justifications for the act of punishment; the oldest one of them is that punishment leads to vengeance and revenge. The principle of retribution is based on the Old Testament’s principle of an eye for an eye (Joyce, 2006, 321). The principle of retribution is not dependant on the nature of crime committed by a criminal neither it focuses on preventing future criminal like activities and criminals that are punished under the principle of retributive justice are punished equal to the wrong doing committed by him. This principle is even based on the principle of punishment should fit the criminal act and this principle was practiced during the early 1800s of Western side of Europe (Easton, 2008, p.62). Later this principle was altered by thinkers and philosophers of neoclassical era, these philosophers realized that different kind of retributive justice may be experienced by different criminals committing the same crime because of certain factors that are not in their control. These factors include mental state of criminals, level of maturity and differences in capacity. According to this change in the basic principle of retributive justice the criminal should be punished on the basis the degree of morality affected by the crime and the criminals own characteristics (Honderich, 1969, p.6). Currently this form of punishment is being used in the criminal justice system of the US. For example: the policy of compulsory sentencing represents this form of retributive punishment (Hale, 2009, p.374). Mandatory sentencing refers to the punishments that are similar in nature for criminals who have committed similar forms of crimes. For example: punishment is of higher degree where the criminal has used a firearm. Sentencing is even based on the level of severity of the crime and the previous criminal records of the criminal. This sort of sentencing is in compliance with the theory of retributive punishment in which retributive punishment is dependant on the nature of severity and the characteristics of the criminal. Retributive form of punishment is mostly linked with punishments for criminals but it is even assigned while other legal punishments are announced or for punishments that are formal in nature. For example: there is a close similarity between the theory of strict liability and philosophy of retribution. In strict liability, punishment is dependant on compensation and the level of damages and the characteristics of the offender are not taken into account. Activities where families seek revenge from each other, terrorist activities, wars that take place in the agrarian communities and targets of the government and the principle of doing justice on the streets are all backed with retribution. Economic punishments that results in restrictions on businesses such as boycotts of products, strikes by workers and cancelation of licensure are all justified through the ethics of utilitarianism. But all these punishments may clearly reflect that these punishments are in place to fit the nature of the crime. The principle of retribution has been criticized by many on different ends when the principle takes shape of application. These sanctions have been recognized as very rigid in nature when only the nature of crime is taken into account and punishments are allotted accordingly. These sanctions are especially confronted by those who give importance to the characteristics of the criminal. The issue with the principle of an eye for an eye is that it can not be fully applied. This principle can not be applied where second parties are not being hurt, for example: in the cases of alcoholism and drug abuse, the criminal is hurting himself and not others. In such cases the criminal and the victim are same individuals and the concept of an eye for an eye can not be applied. The assumption that states that punishment should be dependant on the degree of the immorality of the crime can not be applied to all societies because in pluralistic societies there is quite a difference in the perception of the severity of the crime. The second philosophy of punishment is incapacitation and is mostly promoted by utilitarian ethics (Maguire, 2012, p.869). The utilitarian ethics state that the purpose of punishment should be to eliminate an individual’s ability to commit future crimes (Muncie, 2001, p.107). The principle of incapacitation pays emphasis to eradication of opportunity for individuals to commit deviant acts (Ashworth, 1998, p.282). This purpose is achieved by imposing restraints that are physical in nature. The principle of incapacitation is based on the perception that the conditions of the prison should be such that the criminal himself loose the desire of conducting future crimes (Smartt, 2001, p.121). Basically, the purpose of incapacitation is to deter crimes and criminals, but this kind of effect of incapacitation was not recognized when the philosophy of incapacitation came into existence. For example: punishments such as confinement of an individual in the drunk tank for one night and grounding of children for the wrong doing are considered as very useful ways of incapacitation even though these punishments may not bring in a favorable change in the behavior of the punished individuals. Several methods and techniques have been utilized throughout history to conduct incapacitation. For example: the practices of banishment, exile that used to be political in nature, shifting of criminals from one society to another and exile of public population are all examples of philosophy of incapacitation punishment. Other examples of incapacitation punishment include: use of kiddie harnesses to restrict children from moving in public areas and use of belts of chastity to restrict sexual activity. Incapacitation is even used to assign restrictions that are legal and extralegal in nature. For example: injunctions ordered by the court of law, boycotts at the federal level, restrictions in agreement of trade, orders of restraining in cases of violence that take place on the domestic level, orders that are recognized as cease and desist, shutdown of factories and implementation of requirement of certificates to conduct certain activities. Most of these punishments are economical in nature and these punishments lead to negative effects on individual’s finances but these activities are even regarded as incapacitation as they restrict an individual or organizations activities. Activities such as Ostracism (citizens being barred from their own home towns), negative publicity for an organization, ignoring requests made by individuals and the activity of censorships are certain informal methods through which incapacitation takes place as these informal methods even restricts behavior. Several physical locations for the purpose of incapacitation have been utilized; these locations include prisons, jails, dungeons and correctional centers. Over the period different forms of incapacitation have been created for example programs of shock imprisonment have been utilized with the aim of making children experience the pain they might have to go through for conducting criminal activities. This might be done to inflict the fear of being jailed for committing future crimes. The process of probation is another example of incarceration in which an individual is allowed to be a part of the society but a strict watch is kept on his behaviors, and if the individual commits criminal behavior he is returned back to prison (Padfield, 2008, p.217). The fear that some body is overlooking an individual’s activity may deter the individual from committing any wrong doing. The third philosophy of punishment is deterrence, this philosophy of punishment focuses on deterring criminals and crimes within the society (Hungerford-Welch, 2009, p.555). The principle of deterrence is based on the question of whether punishments that are formal and informal in nature reduce the probability of crime and makes an individual conform to the society (Ashworth, 2010, p.22). Deterrence takes place when the application of punishment makes an individual or a group conforms to the norms of the society (Stockdale, 1992, p.122). The principle of deterrence focuses on the characteristics of the criminal. Punishments that are very severe in nature and easy to apply are the most deterring forms of punishments. Deterrent punishment becomes more effective when it is applied on an individual who is new to the field of crime. The philosophy of deterrence is based on choice theory, according to this theory an individual conducts a cost benefit analysis of different activities and select those activities that provide higher level of satisfaction and can result in lower level of pain (Davies, 1998, p.342). According to the principle of deterrence, those punishments that are highly severe in nature have the most deterrent effect. Researchers have determined four sorts of deterrence. Specific deterrence refers to the event when punishment is able to reduce an individual’s future criminal activities. Specific deterrence is measured through the tool of recidivism rates, these rates refer to the number of crimes committed by one single criminal (Johnstone, 2010, p.60). General deterrence refers to the event in which punishment given to on individual deters others from committing crimes (Ahmed, 2001, p.31). To measure this form of deterrence, criminal activity is matched throughout different jurisdictions. Marginal deterrence focuses on what kind of punishment is more reliable in deterring a particular criminal act (Duff, 1998, p.218). For example: an individual may be imprisoned for drunk driving and an individual may be fined for the same act. If imprisonment leads to higher amount of deterrence then prison is the most effective way of stopping individuals from driving while they are under the influence of alcohol. Partial deterrence arises when individuals fear sanctions and may deter from a particular act while committing a crime (Hudson, 1987, p.16). For example a criminal may not use a gun while stealing from another person because the criminal fears that the level of punishment for using a fire arm while stealing will be higher. When criminal justice system in western nations uses deterrence philosophy to eliminate crime, they increase the severity of the punishment as increased severity is positively linked with deterrent effect. There are certain shortcomings of the philosophy of deterrence, firstly an individual may be committing a crime or not committing a crime because he/she fears punishment. Secondly, punishments change over time and the notion of swift and specific form of punishment is nonexistent. Thirdly the severity of any kind of punishment is dependant on the criminal’s perception, if the criminal may perceive that a particular punishment is low in severity, he/she may not be deterred form committing future crimes (Pratt, 2004, p.xix). Conclusion The principle of retribution is based on the principle of eye for an eye, according to this principle; criminals should be punished in a way so that they can experience the same amount of pain experienced by victims. The principle of incapacitation focuses on restricting the physical probability of an individual to commit crime. The principle of deterrence is based on the principle that fear of punishment can deter crime. References Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J., Braithwaite, V. (2001) Shame Management through Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ashworth, A. (1998), The Criminal Process an Evaluation 2nd edition, OUP, Oxford Ashworth, A. and Redmayne, M. (2010) The criminal process 4th edition, Oxford, OUP Davies, M., Croall, H. & Tyrer, J.(1998) Criminal Justice. (Chapter 10) London: Longman. Duff, A. & Garland, D. (1998) A Reader on Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press Easton, S. and Piper, C. (2008), Sentencing and Punishment The quest for Justice, Oxford, OUP Hale, C., Hayward,K., Wahidin, A. and Wincup, E. Editors, (2009) Criminology 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Honderich, T. (1969), Punishment, the supposed justifications, Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) LTD, London Hudson, B.(1987) Justice through Punishment. London: Macmillan. Hungerford-Welch, P. (2009), Criminal Procedure and Sentencing 7th edition, London, Routledge Johnstone, G. and Ward, T. (2010), Law & Crime, London, Sage Joyce, P. (2006) Criminal Justice, Cullompton, Willan Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (5th edition) Oxford: Clarendon Muncie, J. and McLaughlin, E. (2001), Controlling Crime, Sage, London Padfield, N. (2008), Text and Materials on the Criminal Justice Process 4th edition, Oxford, OUP Pratt, J. (ED) (2004) The New Punitiveness. Culmcott: Willan. Sanders, A. Young, R. and Burton, M. (2010), Criminal Justice 4th edition, Oxford, OUP Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2012), The English Legal System 13th Edition, London, Routledge Smartt, U. (2009), Law for Criminologists, London, Sage Stockdale, E. & Casale, S. (1992) Criminal Justice under Stress. (Chapter 7) London: Blackstone. Read More