Reasons for Punishment
There are several distinct justifications for punishing people convicted of wrongdoing. In policy discussions and debates, it is common for one or both sides to act as though there is a unitary rationale for all punishment, but this usually oversimplifies the situation. You will have an edge in debate rounds if you can show how your position actually serves (or balances) two or more of the following goals:
· Retribution. This means "giving someone what they deserve," or in simpler terms, revenge. By giving victims or their relatives a sense of closure, punishment can increase the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of the system.
· Restitution. This means paying back the victim for what they've lost. Restitution is the primary justification for the payment of compensatory damages in civil cases. It is also a justification for community service and similar punishments in criminal cases (where the public at large is considered a victim of the crime).
· Rehabilitation. This means reforming the criminal so he can eventually reenter society without posing a danger to others. Rehabilitative approaches include psychotherapy and job training.
· Personal (Direct) Deterrence. This means preventing the criminal himself from committing future crimes by removing him from society. The argument that capital punishment deters a killer from ever killing again is an application of personal deterrence.
· Social (Indirect) Deterrence. This means punishing wrongdoers as an incentive or threat to other potential wrongdoers. If potential wrongdoers are made aware that conviction will lead to severe punishments, they will be less likely to commit bad acts. Social deterrence is obviously the motivation behind many criminal punishments, and it also provides the rationale for punitive damages in civil cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment