The statement is concerned with the fundamental purpose of punishments and the implications for society. The question whether crimes can only be committed, if the defendant has consciously chosen to do so, challenges concepts such as, omissions and strict liability cases. This essay will evaluate whether it is true that a defendant can only be punished if they have consciously committed the wrong, and if not; what are the views which challenge this?
The punishment described here is retributive punishment. Retributive punishment states that, after a crime has been committed; there is a need for private revenge. The system provides a sentence that is proportional to the harm caused. The positive aspect of retributive punishment is that the emphasis …show more content…
Dangerous offenders need to be separated from society to protect ordinary people. The State needs to rehabilitate the offenders for release. An advantage of this is that the State would not need to maintain an offender in prison longer than necessary. A problem with retributive punishment is that it does not consider problems such as, jail overcrowding, as it was reported that “it emerged that there were only 265 free spaces left out of an 85,800 capacity across the England and Wales prison estate.” Also, it is known that offenders in prison are likely to reoffend. It could be the aim of punishment to reduce reoffending through rehabilitation. It was put forward in R v. Lichniak, that “some offenders may present no risk of future offending and may have committed an offence less grave than other offences which do not require…an indeterminate sentences” In contrast to retributive punishment, rehabilitation does consider the long-term effects of a punishment. Rehabilitation demonstrates the educational potential of punishment; it allows us to understand why crimes are committed. As a result, we may be able to use rehabilitative punishments to reduce criminal behaviour. The concept of reducing potential criminal behaviour can be argued to be a more important fundamental premise of a criminal justice system, rather than simply punishing those who deserve …show more content…
This can be seen in R v. Lemon where Viscount Dilhorne argued that “Guilt of an offence of publishing a blasphemous libel does not depend on the accused having an intent to blaspheme” , The judgment did not require for the defendant to have intended to publish blasphemous material, the fact that the material published was blasphemous was enough. Perhaps, strict liability cases are an exception. More often than not, mens area is a requirement or plays an essential part in a crime committed. This is regardless of the original
The punishment described here is retributive punishment. Retributive punishment states that, after a crime has been committed; there is a need for private revenge. The system provides a sentence that is proportional to the harm caused. The positive aspect of retributive punishment is that the emphasis …show more content…
Dangerous offenders need to be separated from society to protect ordinary people. The State needs to rehabilitate the offenders for release. An advantage of this is that the State would not need to maintain an offender in prison longer than necessary. A problem with retributive punishment is that it does not consider problems such as, jail overcrowding, as it was reported that “it emerged that there were only 265 free spaces left out of an 85,800 capacity across the England and Wales prison estate.” Also, it is known that offenders in prison are likely to reoffend. It could be the aim of punishment to reduce reoffending through rehabilitation. It was put forward in R v. Lichniak, that “some offenders may present no risk of future offending and may have committed an offence less grave than other offences which do not require…an indeterminate sentences” In contrast to retributive punishment, rehabilitation does consider the long-term effects of a punishment. Rehabilitation demonstrates the educational potential of punishment; it allows us to understand why crimes are committed. As a result, we may be able to use rehabilitative punishments to reduce criminal behaviour. The concept of reducing potential criminal behaviour can be argued to be a more important fundamental premise of a criminal justice system, rather than simply punishing those who deserve …show more content…
This can be seen in R v. Lemon where Viscount Dilhorne argued that “Guilt of an offence of publishing a blasphemous libel does not depend on the accused having an intent to blaspheme” , The judgment did not require for the defendant to have intended to publish blasphemous material, the fact that the material published was blasphemous was enough. Perhaps, strict liability cases are an exception. More often than not, mens area is a requirement or plays an essential part in a crime committed. This is regardless of the original