Different Modes of Punishment and their Effectiveness
Introduction
Punishment in the justice system involves measures undertaken by the state through compulsion and assigned by the judgment of a court. Therefore, punishment entails authoritatively imposing an unpleasant and negative thing on an individual in response to actions deemed unlawful or wrong in the view of society. These acts should constitute criminal offenses in order to warrant punishment from the justice system. Punishment involves restriction or depreciation of freedoms or rights of the offender under punishment. Punishment is administered as a means to reform the convicted individual, restore social justice and also for the prevention of further crimes by the convicted. Inflicting unpleasantness to person that has not committed any crimes and without authority cannot be termed as punishment, and it may constitute a crime. However, it is not automatic to state that punishment reforms the offender or causes prevention and deterrence of crime. Therefore, there is no guarantee that punishment elicits the desired results. In western societies four basic justifications are recognized in the concept of punishment. These justifications include deterrence, retribution, incapacitation (society protection) and rehabilitation.
Retribution is a form of punishment based on the old principles of punishment which justify punishment as a means for society to satisfy its need for retribution. In this context punishment acts as step of moral vengeance in which the offender is made to bear an equal share of suffering as that caused by him/her to the offended victim. This form of justices relies on the concept that holds a belief that society should be balanced and orderly, once this balance is upset by criminal offenses then punishment becomes the sole restorer of societal balance. This is comparable to the biblical principle of punishment enshrined in the saying “an eye for an eye”. Therefore, retribution calls for a harsh response to any offender that commits a crime(Macionis, 2006).
Retribution may serve to deter further crimes by the offender because of fear of the consequences. Serving out this form of punishment may also serve as an example to the general public on what they may face if they do similar crimes, and as a result; they may avoid committing similar offenses. However, retribution does very little in changing the offender in terms of reformation, and as such it is not a guaranteed to help in avoiding future crimes. It may just serve to create more bitterness in the life of the offender, which may lead him/her into further crimes. A death sentence for a murder offense may lead to the death of a person that may be innocent, if that can be proved later. This example would add to injustices rather than solve them. Punishments under retribution such as mutilations performed in the past may incapacitate an offender, but make him/her more dependant and unable to fend for themselves thus; drawing them in to crime.
Deterrence is another form of punishment that is meant to discourage criminal acts. It is based on the principle that human beings are rational and would not like to do anything that may harm their well being. This form of punishment is meant to make the pains of the punishment more severe so as to outweigh the pleasure obtained from committing the crime. Deterrence was used as a milder option for retribution which was deemed harsh compared to retribution. Deterrence prevents crime in two ways. The punishment proves to convicted individuals that committing crimes doe not pay and there is no good that comes off it. The time served in jail also keeps the convicted away from society where s/he may inflict further harm by committing more crimes. The example obtained by others that witness the punishment may serve to show them that crime does not pay and thus instill in them the fear of committing any similar crimes (Macionis, 2006).
Deterrence could be effective to some extent. However, it does not offer any offender correctional measures, but only serves to punish the crimes committed via incarceration. The method is also costly to the economy because the government has to set aside funds and trained personnel to man the incarceration centers. This form of punishment is characterized by repeat offenders, and thus; may seem to be ineffective.
The third form of punishment is societal protection. This form of punishment renders the offender incapable of committing further offenses. This incapacitation may be carried out permanently through a death sentence or temporarily by imprisonment. This method of punishment is closely related to deterrence and it is meant to protect society from crimes. The use of this form is common in the United States with about 2 million people being in prison (Macionis, 2006). The U.S prison’s population has tripled since 1980, due to firm measures to curb the rampant rise of crimes. The method may have other correctional community measures such as parole programs, probation and community correctional programs (Beck & Travis, 2010).
Like deterrence, this method offers partially effective crime prevention. The method also offers no reformatory improvements on the offenders’ side. All that is offered by this method is punishment for offenses committed. The method is also costly, because a lot of government funds have to be set aside to run prisons that prove to be a burden on the economy. Additionally, the imprisoned people have no productivity in nation building. The prison population is increasing tremendously, with the figure tripling since 1980 to about 2 million prisoners, with the U.S imprisoning a very large number of its population. This means the government has to dedicate more resources to prisons. This form of punishment only makes criminals to suffer, but it does not offer any means to correct the behavior, morals and habits of these criminals. This can thus be said to be a futile measure and step towards correcting offenders (Blomberg et al, 2010).This is proven by the large number of imprisoned repeat offenders. This clearly proves that all the method does is to temporarily prevent criminals from committing offenses, but thereafter; they go back to their habits on release.
The fourth method is the rehabilitation method. This justification puts offenders through programs that are meant to reform the offenders’ habits and behaviors so as to prevent them from committing further crimes. Rehabilitation arose as the popularity and practice of social sciences grew in the 19th century. Proponents of this justification state that crimes and deviant habits arise from influences within the environment in which offenders live, and as a result; any efforts to change the offenders’ lives should be directed towards rehabilitative procedures meant to reduce or eliminate the negative aspects bred within the criminal offenders (Lacey, 1994). This method does not seek to cause pain, but rather it is meant to reform the criminal offenders so as to help them develop better societal morals. The rehabilitative centers offer help in controlled environments that help offenders to learn good morals and habits. The method is based on the principle that states that; if offenders can learn bad habits, then similarly, they can learn good habits.
Rehabilitation motivates the offender to conform, and it emphasizes constructive improvement. The rehabilitation programs help the offenders to change their habits and morals so that they may go back to the community as reformed people. This method does not strive to punish, but rather it intends to reform the offenders so that they may not repeat there negative habits. The method is effective in preventing future crimes and repeat offenses. The method also tailors a personal approach in reforming offenders and thus offers the best reformatory approach (Garland, 1993).
Conclusion
All methods have some effectiveness in them. The deterrence and incapacitation methods serve as temporary ways to prevent criminal from committing further offenses, whilst making them suffer for their crimes. However, these methods have shortcomings because they do not reform the offenders’ habits, and they are likely to repeat the offenses on release. On the other hand, the rehabilitation method offers behavior change, and as such it prevents future crimes in a better way. Despite its effectiveness, the method cannot be applied on its own, because some people may be hardcore criminals that cannot easily reform. Therefore, it would be effective the methods are applied in combinations. Imprisoned people may be subjected to rehabilitative programs towards the end of their sentences. This ensures they get punished and reformed at the same time before release.
References
Beck, S.V. and Travis, F.L. (2010). Probation, parole, and community Corrections. International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice. Retrieved on 3rd September, 2010 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=2&sid=277c2c52-6719-45c1-82d6-016aafccbb8d%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=fa906d15&AN=.
Blomberg, G.T., Bales, D.W. and Waid, A.C. (2010). Punishment and Culture. International Handbook of Penology and Criminal Justice. Retrieved on 3rd September, 2010 from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=2&sid=277c2c52-6719-45c1-82d6-016aafccbb8d%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=fa906d15&AN=.
Garland, D. (1993). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, N. (1994). State Punishment: Political principles and community values. Ruotledge publishers.
Macionis, J.J (2006). Society: The basics, eighth edition. Prentice-Hall publishers.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
