Deirdre Golash, in “Is Punishment Justified” and “What If punishment is not Justified,” presents the belief that punishment is unjustified. All semester, this class focused on the numerous theories that justify a criminal justice system and the institution of punishment. All the presented theories justified punishment in different ways, by deterrence, deserts, and education. But Golash presents a radical turn relative to all other theories. She rebukes the theories of deterrence, retributivism, and moral education. Golash believes that these theories undermine their own arguments by the use of punishment. Golash believes that theories can be better achieved through other purposes and that punishment is a greater detriment that the benefits
…show more content…
Retributivism wishes to bring the victim and the wrongdoer to a mutual ground. A ground in which they are equal and where one is not above the other. However, Golash argues that retributivism fails to achieve Through punishment. Golash argues that “punishment, on the other hand, appears to assert that the offender is of a lower value than the victim (just as crime asserts that the victim is of lower value than the offender)” (150). Furthermore, Golash rebukes punishment ion retributivism since it fails to amend the wrong. Simple, “Punishment repeats the crime rather than annulling it in any meaningful sense” (150). What Golash means is that, by punishing, in retributivism, we are not giving just deserts to the criminal, nor are we compensating the victim. By committing the crime we are own detriment the community and the wrongdoer, not healing what has been done. Additionally, Golash argues that even though the wrongdoer has consented to the punishment in place, it should not be considered consenting if there is a better option available. Golash’s better option is something more like “restitution: the shifting of costs back to the offender demonstrates that the offender is not more valuable than the victim, thus affirming the value of the victim”
Retributivism wishes to bring the victim and the wrongdoer to a mutual ground. A ground in which they are equal and where one is not above the other. However, Golash argues that retributivism fails to achieve Through punishment. Golash argues that “punishment, on the other hand, appears to assert that the offender is of a lower value than the victim (just as crime asserts that the victim is of lower value than the offender)” (150). Furthermore, Golash rebukes punishment ion retributivism since it fails to amend the wrong. Simple, “Punishment repeats the crime rather than annulling it in any meaningful sense” (150). What Golash means is that, by punishing, in retributivism, we are not giving just deserts to the criminal, nor are we compensating the victim. By committing the crime we are own detriment the community and the wrongdoer, not healing what has been done. Additionally, Golash argues that even though the wrongdoer has consented to the punishment in place, it should not be considered consenting if there is a better option available. Golash’s better option is something more like “restitution: the shifting of costs back to the offender demonstrates that the offender is not more valuable than the victim, thus affirming the value of the victim”