AlverniaJudicial ProcessSpring06

Should the punishment fit the crime or should the punishment fit the criminal? In what ways do the four sentencing philosophies provide different answers to this question?
Retribution - "eye for an eye" this sentencing philosophy states punishment is directly tied to the seriousness of the crime, in retribution punishment is for the crime. It states that individuals are held responsible for their own actions, because they have disregarded the rights of others. Retribution sentencing believes in just deserts, the severity of sanctions should be proportionate to the gravity of the defendant's criminal conduct.

Incapacitation focuses on the personal characteristics of the offender. Incapacitation sentencing looks at the type of person committing the crime, the crime is more important that the crime committed. The goal is to prevent future crime, not past crimes. Incapacitation theory is about restraining an offender to protect society against more crime, the problem with this sentencing philosophy is that it's to expensive, we would have to build more prisons, there is no regulations on the length of time speng in jail.

Deterrance argues that the punishment should fit the criminal, the goal is to prevent other offenders from committing crimes. Deterrance theory believes people seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, deterrance sentencing objectives of punishment is to discourage crime by making it painful. It's belief is that offenders are more likely to deter away from crime if they know the punishment will be painful. Fear and certainty of punishment deters criminal behavior.

Rehabilitation sentencing focuses on rehabilitation of the offender, sentencing should fit the offender rather than the offense. Rehabilitation sentencing objectives is to treat the criminal to help the offender become a productive citizen, problems with rehabilitation sentencing is that one can not change another person, change is from within.

In looking at out society today, crime is out of control, it a war in our city with gun violations and other crimes, law enforcements have to again find ways to deter crimes. I believe in just deserts, which is in agreement with the retribution theory, let the punishment fit the crime regardless of who commits the crime, it's a crime, what about the victims?
 

Larry Nelson
Question #4.Under contemporary standards,would the Furman case be considered a death-eligible case?
The court clearly signaled the importance of the issue by allotting a full four hour for oral argument.The lawyers argued over what the somewhat archaic eighteenth century phrase"cruel and unusual punishment"meant in the twentieth century.To Stanford law professor Tony Amsterdam, the standard should be whether a punishment,if evenhandedly applied, would be unacceptable to contemporary standards of decency.The divergent approaches adopted by adopted by the five justices in majority meant that Furman v.Georgia set no precedent. Although the Court ruled that existing laws did not pass constitutional muster, the wording left open the possiblity that future laws,more narrowly drafted,might comply with the Eighth Amendment to the constitution.
 

As it was stated, sentencing decisions about the causes of crime, the nature of the criminals, and the role of the court.However,it must be understood the remaining criminals who indulge in drugs and burglary and the like is that many of these defendants when released from prison or jail commit further acts of crime which is really not addressed at lenght.Rehabilitation which is at the cornerstone in my area attempts to look at this issue and with hopes look at the underlying reasons in the defendants life.
 

THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.
RETRIBUTION: AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. THE OLDEST OF SENTENCING PHILOSOPHIES. INDIVIDUALS ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. DISREGARDING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, THAT UPSET SOCIAL ORDER. BECAUSE THE VICTIM HAS SUFFERED THE CRIMINAL SHOULD SUFFER AS WELL. CRIMINALS ARE WICKED PEOPLE AND THEREFORE DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED. RETRIBUTION POVIDES FOR RECONCILIATION THROUGH PUNISHMENT, THE OFFENDER ARE SAID TO HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY.
INCAPACITATION: LOCK THEM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. CRIME CAN BE PREVENTED IFCRIMINALS ARE PHYSICALLY RESYRAINED. THE THEORY ISOLATING CURRENT OR POTENTIAL CRIMINALS. THE GOAL IS TO PREVENT FUTURE CRIMES, NOT PUNISH THE PAST ONES, ISOLATING GUILTY OFFENDER PREVENTING THEM FROM COMMITTING ADDITIONAL CRIMES IN THE COMMUNITY. PRISON PROTECT COMMUNITY.
DETERRENCE: LET THIS SENTENCE BE A WARNING TO OTHER. THE PURPOSE OF PUNIHMENT IS THE PREVENTION OF FUTURE CRIMES. THIS THEORY OFFER IDEA ABOUT THE CAUSE OF CRIME AND HOW TO ALTER THEM. DETERRENCE IS NOT CONTENT TO PUNISH THE GIVEN WRONGDOER, RATHER IT SEEKS TO PREVENT OTHER POTENIAL OFFENDERS FROM COMMITING CRIMES. THIS ARGUE THAT THE PUNHISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME. BASICALLY TO DICOURAGE CRIME BY MAKING IT PAINFUL. BECAUSE PEOPLE SEEK TO MINIMIZE PAIN, THEY WILL REFRAIN FROM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CRIMES WHICH RESUKT IN PAINFUL SANCTION.
REHABILITATION: MODERN JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPOSING PUNHISMENT IS TO RESTORE A CONVICTED OFFENDER TO A CONSTRUCTIOIVE PLACE IN SOCIETY THROUGH VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, OR THERAOEUTIC TREATMENT.
 

www0706


swarovski crystal
thunder jerseys
tory burch outlet
polo ralph lauren
moncler outlet
nike store uk
ray ban sunglasses
chelsea jersey
ugg boots
michael kors

 

مكافحة حشرات بالطائف
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالطائف
نقل عفش غرب الرياض
نقل عفش شرق الرياض
 

شركة تنظيف كنب بالقصيم
شركة تنظيف فلل بالقصيم
شركة تنظيف منازل بالقصيم
شركة تنظيف مسابح بالقصيم
شركة جلي بلاط بالقصيم