Models of criminal sanction or punishment
Retribution
Retribution is not concerned with future consequences. Rather it looks to the past and seeks to impose on the criminal the level of suffering he deserves that is, a level of suffering properly proportional to the wrongfulness of his criminal conduct. Retribution is open to the conceptual objection that the concept of desert is difficult to analyze with any precision indeed is perhaps little more than a metaphor left over from old theological notions of cosmic or divine justice and that a just society will not impose suffering on people in pursuit of a mere metaphor. It also is not at all clear why the secular state should be concerned with punishing on the basis of moral desert anyway. The retributivist approach is based on the revenge motive expressed in the supposed logic of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Historically, retribution was related to the paying back of a debt, while in the penal context it has referred to the idea of deserved punishment. It is easy to see how it is often regarded as the most important aim of punishment certain offences deserve certain punishments, and if offenders did not receive their proper, deserved punishment, then surely law and order would break down (Murphy 2003). Linked with the basic notion of retribution is the belief that punishment should also demonstrate a society's condemnation of particular offenses and of particular offenders; and that those offenses which excite the strongest condemnation merit the most severe of punishments. While it is accepted that punishment cannot undo the harm done by an offender, it can have the potential to make victims of crime feel better and can perhaps enable people to make sense of the senseless. Retributivists emphasize the denunciation aspect of punishment. The passing of a sentence acts to denounce the particular offense and can be seen as a public statement of disapproval with the severity of the punishment demonstrating the degree of this disapproval. And it is only by pronouncing a proper and proportionate penalty that the offense can be given the disapproval that it merit (Cochrane, Cochrane & Melville 2004). In the retribution model of criminal sanction the goal is to belief is that proportional kind of punishment is the most acceptable response to crime. In retribution a focus is to give satisfaction and psychological benefits to the victim or his/her relatives.
Deterrence
The deterrence argument also has a natural appeal to legislatures and to the middle-class perception generally. With the growth of public concern about crime, there followed an intense battle among political figures to show who was being more tough on offenders and a corresponding scramble for political opportunities to label their opponents soft on crime. This battle emerged along with the use of the 30-second TV sound bite as a central feature of political campaigns. It was much easier to incorporate a slamming prison-cell door into one of those commercials than to discuss the complex trade-offs surrounding incarceration, its incapacitate effects, its opportunity costs, and its potentially criminogenic effects on the prisoner (Tonry 2004). While there is little doubt that deterrence works to some degree, there must be an important difference between its effectiveness in conventional middle-class populations who have so much to lose from the condemnation and relative deprivation associated with a prison sentence compared to the lower-class populations that comprise the great majority of offenders who engage in the crimes that lead to imprisonment. Deterrence assumes that people act rationally, weighing the potential costs and benefits of what they do. If society wants to prevent people from acting in certain ways, it only has to increase the cost of acting in those ways. Making robbery a crime punishable by imprisonment discourages people from robbing. For behavior that is more wrongful, society have only to increase the penalty to increase the deterrent. The threat of punishment is general deterrence. Some people just don't get the message, though. If the threat of punishment doesn't deter someone from robbing a bank, actually spending time in prison for the crime might do so. And if that doesn't work, increasing the punishment the second time might deter a third robbery. This is the logic behind three strikes and you're out laws, mandating life terms for criminals convicted of three serious crimes. Focusing on the potential repeat offender in this way is specific deterrence. Deterrence as a basis of criminal law makes intuitive sense. If a mother tells her children that if they don't stop fighting she will send them to their rooms, the threat of the punishment may be enough to deter the kids' conduct. Although the world at large is more complicated, the same principle seems to hold; the threat of criminal punishment has a deterrent effect. But the effect depends on a number of factors (Feinman 2000). Oftentimes Deterrence is contrasted with the concept of retributivism since the latter focuses on finding an equivalent punishment for a crime. Critics claim that deterrence has not shown effectivity in achieving its goals. In implementing deterrence the state cannot force a criminal to pause and consider the possible sanction of a planned crime. In a society that implements deterrence criminals often than not are more scared of getting caught than the thought of being punished. Experts believe that deterrence is a model that is less fair and is not effective enough.
Incapacity/Imprisonment
Securing the legitimacy of exclusionary places is thus a matter both of controlling potentially rebellious inmates and of managing public impressions. State authorities may fail to anticipate how exclusionary practices will later be commemorated or condemned, however they invariably attempt to deflect dissent and curry support while imposing practices of isolation. Each governing authority has its own ways of presenting the public face of exclusion, but some general historical patterns are apparent. For example, the penitentiary replaced the spectacle of the scaffold as democratic governments devised a different way to teach criminals a lesson. Imprisonment registered a new configuration of power throughout the social body and removed the potential for public displays of disapproval at unpopular executions (Bondeson 1994). Imprisonment patterns are not immune to influence from changes in crime rates and patterns, but they are at least as much and often more the consequences of conscious policy choices made by public officials. The primary goal of criminal policy is the reduction of crime. However, the methods used to reach this goal vary with national traditions, the level of available knowledge and the nature of social, economic and other conditions. The development of such penal measures as conditional sentence and probation must be seen as a part of the general movement in modern societies away from a traditional repressive system. Imprisonment seems in many ways to be not well suited for many, more or less distinct, categories of offenders. The earlier aim of retaliation and general prevention is being replaced in principle by more humanitarian and directly utilitarian considerations. The most important goal of criminal policy has been stated to be the rehabilitation of offenders and attempts are made by rational means to reach this goal. This development in criminal policy parallels improvements in social conditions and social services in order, among other things, to prevent crime (Bashford & Strange 2003). Imprisonment happens when one is suspected or convicted of doing a crime. There are differing rates of imprisonment. Criminal imprisonment treated as a separate entity with imprisonment in the political sense. The frequency of prison time differs on a crime committed and the policies in a country. The frequency and severity of imprisonment differs on the local situation and the heaviness of offense. There have been debates on the motives of imprisonment, how it is effective and how it relates to the nature of criminal activities.
Rehabilitation
The skepticism about rehabilitation springs from three sets of concerns, all reasonable, yet all paralyzing if accepted without thought. The first reason for skepticism is the fear that people who have demonstrated their contempt for society's laws may continue to flout them, even after they are better prepared to survive as law-abiding citizens. Preparation is neither a panacea nor a guarantee, but it makes reform possible. A second reason for skepticism is the adversarial environment of the prison. The resulting bitterness, resentment, wariness, and contempt would seem to preclude the trust and mutual respect necessary for effective teaching, supervising, or counseling. Yet those who have studied prisons, or other social organizations, know that it is not impossible for opponents to work together for some mutual advantage, even if their mutual suspicion never quite disappears. If programs meant to prepare prisoners for release are beneficial to both staff and prisoners, one might see cooperation begin to develop. A final reason for skepticism is the sense that programs have simply not worked in the past. Yet a closer look at the record does not justify that grimness (McMurran 2002). Programs never work for everybody, and they often work for very few. But re examining the history of failed prison programs shows that they are often accompanied by garish mismanagement: internecine warfare between staff, outright subversion of programs by prisoners or administrators, untrained staff directed to run a program, or trained staff who are not given the latitude to act. One would not expect programs implemented or mis implemented in these ways to work. Understanding what prevents the successful implementation of programs is the first step in discovering whether prison programs can act as effective agents of correction (Lin 2000).
Which model is favored?
Among all models rehabilitation is the one favored and it should be the one used by countries and governments. Rehabilitation is the more favorable model of crime sanction/punishment. Rehabilitation would reduce the number of people in prisons and it would reduce the need for retribution and it would strengthen the deterrence to commit crime. To make it more effective rehabilitation should focus on determining the common reasons on doing crime then using such knowledge to convince criminals to not commit criminal acts. To make it more effective rehabilitation should determine means to prevent someone to commit the same crime. To make it more effective rehabilitation can suggest to a criminal alternative activities so that he/she will not be inclined to commit any crime.
References
Bashford, A & Strange, C (eds.) 2003, Isolation: places and
practices of exclusion, Routledge, New York.
Bondeson, UW 1994, Alternatives to imprisonment: Intentions and
reality, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Cochrane, J, Cochrane, J & Melville, G 2004, Criminal justice:
An introduction to philosophies, theories and practice,
Routledge, London.
Feinman, JM 2000, Law 101: Everything you need to know about the
American legal system, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lin. A 2000, Reform in the making: The implementation of social
policy in prison, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
McMurran, M (ed.) 2002, Motivating offenders to change: A guide
to enhancing engagement in therapy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Murphy, JG 2003, Getting even: Forgiveness and its limits,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Tonry, M (ed.) 2004, The future of imprisonment, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment