Punishment is the act of inflicting a consequence or penalty on an individual or individuals due to their wrongdoing. Spanking or grounding a child for a mistake serves as punishment. There are several theories to support the use of punishment to maintain order in society; hence, the rationales of punishment. This paper describes into detail retribution, utilitarianism, and incapacitation rationales for punishment.
In the retributive theory, wrongdoers are punished for criminal behavior because they deserve punishment. Punishment helps bring back society's balance that is distracted offenders' illegal activities (Mitchell, 2011). When punishing wrongdoers, this theory focuses itself on the cause, that is, the crime. Punishment is deduced from the severity of the transgression. Therefore, punishment is directly proportional to the crime; minor offenses receive less punishment, while severe crimes receive harsh penalties. This means that the severity of a crime caries determines the punishment level.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the retributive theory, people have a conscious and free will to make sound rational decisions (Mitchell, 2011). People who are to stand accused of crimes and are deemed insane or in a condition making their sanity doubtful are not punished and are not fit to stand trial. On the other hand, people who make conscious decisions to cause harm and imbalance in the society setup are to be punished. Retribution is based on moral values. According to this theory, vengeance is justified in punishing offenders. This is to say people are forced to suffer as they caused harm to others. The rights of society and the offender are upheld in retribution (Mitchell, 2011). By punishing the offender, society demonstrates respect for their free will and decision making. When punished, the offender is a payback to society as they are made to pay their debt to the community. It is assumed that the offender, after serving their punishment, they are guilty and stigma-free.
The retribution theory advocates for punishment not only when crimes against others are committed but also when decency standards and minimum expectations of society are violated. Attempting and failing to cause harm, a person triggers a retribution call to punish the offender. Again, putting others in harm or displaying disregard to other people in society warrants this theory. The retributive theory factors in the offender's attitude and motive when handing out the just punishment (Shelke & Dharm, 2019). Thus, retribution is flexible because it allows intentional offenses to warrant more punishment compared to the crimes that will be unintended.
The theory of utilitarianism focuses on punishing offenders for discouraging and deterring them from future crimes. Offenders deserve to be punished for their deeds. This philosophy advocates for maximum society happiness; thus, laws are made with this regard. This theory advocates that crime and punishment be kept minimal as they affect society's state and joy (Marteni, 2011). This theory factors that corruption exists in the community, but endeavors to serve enough punishment to deter future crimes. Laws act against individuals who, through greed, tends to pull the benefits of society to themselves.
Both the offender and society are affected by the punishment handed for the crimes committed. The community uses punishment as a tool to protect the common good of humanity against the offender. Punishment serves to contain the ill motives of the greedy individual in society. Punishment limits are that it could be unjust if it goes beyond a certain level compared to the crime in question. In other words, punishment should not be unlimited (Marteni, 2011). To illustrate this, debilitating sickness can lead to the release of a prisoner. The imminent death of an offender means that society is not served by continued imprisonment as they cannot commit a crime.
Laws specify that punishing criminal activities is designed to help prevent future offenses. Utilitarian theory can be described in deterrence and rehabilitation models. Deterrence as a model operates in specific and general levels. The general level advocates that punishment ought to help prevent offenders from criminal activities in the future. Punishing serves as a guide to society and notifies the society that offenders will be punished (Shelke & Dharm, 2019) . Offenders are prevented from committing crimes through punishment in the specific deterrence level.
Rehabilitation as a form of the rationale for punishment describes that punishments are made to shape the criminal's future behavior (Shelke and Dharm, 2019). Rehabilitation aims to save one from criminal activities and convert the useful members of the society. Treatment of criminal afflictions is advocated for in the rehabilitation form. Educational programs are in cooperated in the duration of punishment to help the offenders acquire skills to apply to make a livelihood.
Incapacitation theory advocates for preventing further crimes from the offenders and their removal from the community base. Offenders are denied the physical ability to re-offend society. Imprisonment of offenders serves as a form of incapacitation though there exist other severe methods. According to Marteni (2011), punishment through incapacitation is a reductive rationale for punishment. Utilitarianism underpins reductivism. Thus, discipline is justified if the inflected pain and suffering to the offender prevent them from committing crimes in the future and not causing harm to society. The offenders' rights are barely considered when handing punishment to them.
Capital punishment is a permanent and severe model of incapacitation. The concept of deterrence justifies this mode though it remains controversial through the death sentence. When the offender is put to death, it is indisputable, and they cannot commit further crimes (Marteni, 2011). According to Mitchell (2011), another type of punishment used in the modern world is victim dismemberment. It involves a condition whereby punishing is justified by the risk offenders pose to the general society and is not concerned by the offenders’ nature.
The conception of punishment can be a combination of the above-described rationales for punishment. Retribution is the frequently applied form of punishment. In a conviction case, the sentence handed to the defendant falls under retribution. Educational programs inside prisons help in rehabilitating convicts and fall under utilitarian rationale. The creation of pretrial, parole, and probation programs under the legal systems show utilitarian application—the systems help limit the punishment of the offenders to acceptable limits in the society.
References
Materni, M. (2011). Criminal punishment and the Pursuit of Justice [Ebook] (pp. 264-299). https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2011/09/michele-materni-criminal- punishment.pdf
Mitchell, J. (2011). Crimes of Misery and Theories of Punishment Crimes of Misery and Theories of P [Ebook] (15th ed., pp. 480-498). Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. Retrieved 16 September 2020, from https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=facul ty.
Shelke, S., & Dharm, J. (2019). Theories of Punishment: Changing Trends in Penology. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology , 8 (6s3), 1299- 1301. https://www.ijeat.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i6S3/F12250986S319.pdf
