PUNISHMENTS

Four Types of Punishments



Four Types of Punishments

Retribution Punishment

Retribution is the dosing of punishment commensurate to the behavior of the individual, including his criminal history. Finally, rehabilitation is the goal of helping the individual alters his behavior to become more pro-social. The idea that some people deserve to die rooted in the legal premise of retribution. Retribution has roots in the lex talionis (“law of the same kind” or “measure for measure”) of the Judeo-Christian and Near East religions, in the moral philosophies of Hegel, and, Kant, and, more recently in the contemporary work of Andrew von Hirsch, and, John Rawls. The word itself stems from the Latin retribuere, meaning “to hand back” or “to recompense,” and, within retributive theories of justice, argued, that crime causes harms to victims, and, to society that result in an imbalance of justice. The point of retribution, argue supporters, is thus not revenge, but rather a return of the net balance of justice suspended through crime. Thus, even for many people who support capital punishment do so for reasons of both retribution and deterrence, theoretically, they are dissimilar.

The concept of retribution contrasts starkly to that of deterrence in so far, the former that focuses on what has already happened, while the later premised on what may come in the future. Retribution, and, in particular modern forms of just-deserts theories, argues that punishment justified for the reason of restoring this net balance, and, as such, must be applied only to guilty people in a manner proportional to the offense. Application of punishment for other reasons, in particular for utilitarian reasons of crime prevention or social welfare, violates the net balance of justice insofar as it may apply either less or more punishment that is the recompense for the offense. The work of Andrew von Hirsch in particular has been instrumental in the resurgence of the idea that punishment, justified, as a result of one's just deserts, namely, under conditions where guilt, established, and, where the punishment corresponds to the level of harms caused to victims. In this regard, the use of capital punishment is seen as not only ethically permissible, but necessary, insofar as the net imbalance caused by the taking of a life cannot be returned by life imprisonment or other less equal punishments. In this regard, argue proponents, the question of whether or not capital punishment deters future offenders is immaterial; and, on the grounds of deterrence alone, it cannot be justified (Feeley, 1992).

Deterrence Punishment

Deterrence can be understood as the prevention of criminal behavior through fear of punishment. Deterrence theory posits that criminal behavior can be prevented by threatening potential offenders with punishment that produces pain or loss that outweighs any pleasure, reward, or gain associated with criminality. Much of the research on deterrence has been conducted with regard to whether capital punishment deters murder. Although it is certainly logical that the thought of execution ought to create fear in potential murderers, thereby producing a general deterrent effect, the vast majority of the ...