Punishment Research

According to the Oxford Companion to American Law article, retribution is considered one of the oldest methods used to punish individual wrongdoers. Retribution is also known as "just deserts," and allows the American judicial system to evaluate the seriousness of a particular offence committed then determine a suitable punishment that is comparative to the crime. This form of punishment tolerates a formal method of retaliation for society, and the individual victims. Furthermore, the article lists a few different types of retribution and clearly states there are numerous ways its use has proven to be most effective within our court system. One type of retribution is limiting retribution (Frase, 2008).

This modern form presents to judges a high and low level boundary limit that can be used as a reference guide when trying to determine a proper punishment for a criminal. In return this can help prevent Judges from either being over excessive, or too lenient. Moreover, restorative justice, the latest form of retribution being used offers an even greater sense of satisfaction to the community and victim than limiting. The courts have decided to permit both community officials and victims to become involved with the sentencing and punishment process. In addition retribution is just another more humane form of punishment that takes the place of public humiliation, such as whipping, dunking, and other corporal punishment methods (Frase, 2008).

The second article was put together by a group of professional criminologists. These professionals state our criminal justice system is comprised many punishments for the sole purpose of deterrence. Deterrence is supposed to produce a sense of fear for any individual who is thinking about committing a criminal act. These criminologists believe deterrence is extremely effective on the ordinary citizen, or those who have a great deal to lose, such as family, friends, career, or reputation. But deterrence is least likely to work on a hardened career criminal. Furthermore, it is considered that a vast majority of criminals act on impulse and do not weigh punishment that follows after a criminal offence like ordinary citizens (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Paternoster, 2004).

Research has proven there are a number of important underlying factors that contradict the effectiveness of deterrence. First, normal members of society are less apt to commit crimes due moral beliefs, religion, and family values. Society for the most part will usually function and follow social norms equally including possible threats. Criminals, on the other hand, are impulsive, and disregard any laws, rules, and regulations and do not carry any of the positive traits the norms of society hold. Career criminals and hard criminals are considered to have high motivational tendencies and a strong willingness to commit an act of violence, or other crime; therefore, this trait reduces the affect and purpose of deterring punishments (Wright, et al., et al., et al., 2004).

Rehabilitation is the most recent feature that has been added into the criminal justice systems correctional facility says Nicholas Tan, a world University debater for Cambridge University, and a world's debater for the Singapore's National Team. Tan states the purpose of rehabilitation is quite different from that of deterrence, or any, other form of punishment, for that matter. Moreover, the main idea is to offer a wide range of assistance programs and treatment centers that will focus on personal issues. The objective is to focus on negative traits the individual has acquired over the years and replace them with positive characteristics that can be used in a productive manner once released back out into society (Tan, 2008).

Due to the rising increase in our prison population, rehabilitation is being used more frequently throughout the United States, and numerous programs-treatment centers have been developed. Such programs are: substance abuse centers, counseling for HIV-AID's and victimization, work training programs, and educational programs. Furthermore, the article discusses the pros and cons of each topic: which is a better general justifying aim for punishment, which approach has a greater regard for the offender, which is a better basis for determining sentencing, does rehabilitation work and is imprisonment a special consideration (Tan, 2008).

In this fourth article, psychologist David Tate explains an ongoing issue that has forced many professionals and nonprofessionals throughout the United States to discuss and construct specific punishments for serious juvenile offenders. Societal protection, designed to hand out harsh punishments, such as the death penalty, and the "three strikes law", was originally intended for adult who committed serious offences, and repeated felony offenders. Due to the increase of juveniles committing heinous acts of violence, harsh punishments are being giving out in more juvenile court systems than ever before. Recent studies showed over 40% of all juvenile judges believe serious juvenile offenders should receive the death penalty, or long-term prison sentences, versus being offered rehabilitation (Tate, Reppucci, & Mulvey, 1995).

One problem the article mentions is there are not enough rehabilitation programs, or treatment centers, designed to help juveniles due to the high costs needed, and lack of professionals trained to handle juvenile cases. Furthermore, juvenile judges stress the fact that community protection is a first priority, and rehabilitation does not guarantee that the juvenile will return into society in a positive fashion. The article focuses on other leading topics, such as biological interventions, cognitive-behavioral approaches, social skill training, problem-solving and skills training, and a multi-systematic therapy technique (Tate, et al., et al., 1995).

In my opinion retribution is a form of punishment that is most effective when it comes to deterring individuals from committing criminal offences. Though the debate stands that hardened criminals, or repeated, offenders-career criminals are not easily threatened by our judicial systems punishments, retribution does, in fact, place a certain level of fear in the overall public. With the use of retribution, and new litigations that allow victims and officials to become involved with the sentencing-punishment process, the word has spread throughout most communities, and any individual thinking about committing a crime against another individual, or property will be more pertinent to think twice and weigh the consequences.

Without rules, regulations, and laws, society would be in total chaos. I compare laws to that of religion, each having a very important role designed to help individuals maintain positive social behavior while in society. Without laws, there would be no protection for those who abide by the law, and families, friends, and businesses would be in constant fear. A benefit for society is the guarantee that if an individual is found guilty in the court of law, a punishment that fits the crime will be giving to the offender. Furthermore, this helps prevent most victims from taking the law into their own hands.

Criminals, on the other hand, can share in some of the same benefits. Fines, may be used as a means of punishment; thereby, allowing the guilty party to remain productive in the community and continue with the family. Other benefits, such as rehabilitation may be offered, such as counseling for substance abusers, educational programs, and job training. This form of punishment may be all that is needed to help a small criminal turn his, or her, life around.

References

Frase, R. (2008, December 13). The Oxford Companion to American Law: Criminal Punishments. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from ProQuest database.

Tan, N. (2008). International debate education association: Rehabilitation vs. Retribution. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=307

Tate, D., Reppucci, D., & Mulvey, E. (1995). Violent juvenile delinquents: Treatment effectiveness and implications for future action. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.

Wright, B., Caspie, A., Moffitt, T., & Paternoster, R. (2004 May). Journal of Research of Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved December 13, 2008, from EBSCOhost database.