Philosophies Of Punishment And Impact Of Punitive †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Philosophies Of Punishment And Impact Of Punitive. Answer: Five philosophies of punishment are practiced in criminal justice system; rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, incapacitation and restoration with a philosophy for preventing criminal offenses to occur. Deterrence tries to convince individuals not to violate laws or commit crimes. Rehabilitation explains that crime is committed by sick person or criminal due to psychological or physical problems therefore need to be rehabilitated and released from prison. Incapacitation explains that it is important to isolate offenders to prevent crimes from society and should be kept in prisons. Retribution justifies punishment described as penalty being a concept in criminal punishment. This theory explains that offender need to be punished by taking away their opportunities gained through illegal or criminal acts. Finally, restoration explains that when a crime is committed, criminal offender need to pay for the loss of property or any damage caused (Harrison 1990). These theories are applied by judges while sentencing offenders and use penalties suiting the criminal offense without any influence from political, social, ethical or moral factors. Modernism is the recap of all economic, social and political changes that took place in prison in the face of punishment. As explained by Cohen 1986, prison is a mechanism of progress in the civilising process. In context to modernism, during the 18th century (1750s-1970s), liberalism was defined by utilitarian aspects of punishment justified as offenders who broke social contract. Later, penal modernism moved from punishment of body to imprisonment being the main form of punishment for offenders who committed crimes. Punishment was aimed at making bad people good and makes them culturally acceptable inflicting punishment of the body. During the 18th and 19th century, the modern society viewed punishment through which reproach or disapproval is expressed (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001). Punishment inside prison is not aimed at causing pain rather convey a strong signal to offender that pain is the repercussion or consequence of punishment, although not an essential element. The theo ry of politics of punitiveness posits that states political environment greatly influence the degree to which it incarcerate citizens, political determinants of state being conditional. From political psychology, punitiveness is grounded popular idea of conservative moral values and concerns in collective cohesion and security. Conservatism is embedded in ideology of punishment suggesting that people commit crime that lack self-control and moral conscience and harsh punishment can help to bring them on the right track (Simon and Feeley 2003). The impact of punitive attitudes and dangerous states of public and government is that punitiveness towards crime is hypothesized to act decisively in period of relative uncertainty. From the sociological perspective, it is argued that public attitude towards punitive is influenced by dynamics of socio-economic structure. The politicians assume that public is becoming punitive towards crime that is being over-estimated. Policy makers assume that individual differences in attitudes of people are due to psychological factors. The socio-demographic factors play a role in understanding the impact of crime and punishment. Conservatism also plays an important role in influencing public attitudes towards punitive having an impact as convicted criminals should be punished through tougher prison sentences rather than rehabilitating offenders (Christie and Hanna 2006). The legitimacy of punitive response to people who are disadvantaged illustrates idea of discrimination and stigma that does not alien with law. Stigma is negative leading to punitive response where it is related to conviction and unjustified stigma having a negative conviction towards offenders. There is stigma being legitimate associated with disadvantaged situations, examples of actions that are of criminal nature. Offenders are being stigmatized and racism prevails rooted in the society rather than individual behaviour. The legitimate antenna is tuned towards unjustifiable stigma arising from arbitrary ascription of negative attitude that results in social punitive response leading to persistent disadvantage to people. This depicts that public response to situations of disadvantaged is punitive (Carrabine and Longhurst 1998). Diverse punishment is embedded in the concept where different legislation and communities choose various types of punishment for punishing criminals differently. These punishments may be either majorly offensive to some people or may be not to others. Military discipline and punishment makes a difference between an army and a mob. This form of behaviour are the consequences of indoctrination and training that is designed ensuring compliance to orders among groups and individuals creating and maintaining cohesion in military. Discipline is the important factor that holds armies together, loyalty towards comrades and unit and leadership (Weber 2017). Court consultation is conference between attorney and counsel engaged in understanding the cause of the case, arrangement of proofs and removal of difficulties during case examination. Final assessment is the way evidence and statements of witnesses are examined to give the final judgment on the case whether to support or reject the proofs in consultation with plaintiffs witness. References Carrabine, E. and Longhurst, B., 1998. Gender and prison organisation: Some comments on masculinities and prison management.The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice,37(2), pp.161-176. Christie, C.J. and Hanna, R.M., 2006. A Push down the Road of Good Corporate Citizenship: The Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Am. Crim. L. Rev.,43, p.1043. Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E., 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.Organizational behavior and human decision processes,86(2), pp.278-321. Harrison, R., 1990. State Punishment By Nicola Lacey London: Routledge, 1988, xiii+ 222 pp., 25.00. Simon, J. and Feeley, M., 2003. The form and limits of the new penology.Punishment and social control,2, pp.75-116. Weber, C.J.S., 2017. Whatever Happened to Military Good Order and Discipline?.Cleveland State Law Review,66(1), p.123.