Is the Current U.S. Punishment System Really Just?

Throughout time man has caused problems. Consequently, man has come up with ways to solve these problems. From citations to death penalties we have created a way to make sure, for the most part, that people will not commit crime. But every punishment system is incorrect in more than one way. People will always disagree with some or all of the punishment techniques employed by the central government. Yet it is the governments' duty to uphold these punishments to the best of their ethical standards. Which leads to another problem: what happens when the government deals unethically? There have been many proposed solutions to this quandary; including the presence of a jury or the decision of the highly intellectual. No one has developed a punishment system which appeals to everyone, but many have attempted.

According to Beccaria, the punishment given must be proportionately equal to the harm done by the crime. As simple as this may sound, it holds many flaws. We are all human beings and therefore make mistakes and are subject to sympathy. An example is that if someone murders someone else, the victim's family may choose to not press charges. They usually only do this if they believe that the murderer is truly apologetic for what he has done. Yet under Beccaria's form of punishment system, he believes that the murderer should still be given what he deserves. Not only that, but Beccaria also believes that his punishment should be public in order to give an example of what will happen to anyone who chooses to commit the same crime as him. Again, we are all human beings, and if a murderer sees that another murderer has been pardoned from punishment, he will do everything in his power to make sure that he himself will not get punished. That is where the government steps in. The government is the one that regulates this to make sure a criminal gets what he deserves.

Most governments regulate punishment by having juries, where everyday citizens get to collectively decide the fate of a criminal based on the evidence presented by lawyers and witnesses. There are many flaws in the jury system. Whether these individuals on the jury are competently aware of the laws and crime at hand is no concern to government. Other factors of corruption can come into play between the lawyer and the judge. The judge may promote a "speedy" hearing for the sake of time, and to the benefit of the lawyer, for whatever reason.

There are countless other ways in which the parties can tamper with the punishment system. Criminals write narratives which detail the criminal activity which was committed. Throughout the process of writing these narratives, the criminals may find reason to make corrections to it. Usually these corrections show more "truth" to the story. One way to promote corrections is to force the accused to answer questions in such a way that does not favor the accused. This is not only immoral, but also illegal. Under the U.S. Constitution, every citizen has the right of protection from self compulsory self-incrimination. Most of the time, the accused is not permitted to write their own confession, thus letting the person who is writing it total freedom to express the words in any way they want.

In conclusion, every punishment system is far from perfect, or complete for that matter. As humans, we can never collectively agree on a way to treat people who commit a crime. Everyone in a nation can never accept the death penalty. Nor can everyone be happy with the fact that a jury does not always find the right answer. And those things are perfectly fine. Why not settle for the next best thing? The criminal justice system does not always work the way it should, but as long as we strive to perfect it, then we headed in the right direction.

Reference List:

Chicago Tribune: Sept. 16, 2004
Beccaria: On the Justice System
O'Reilly, Gregory: Ethics of Our System