Deterrence is the Utilitarian approach to punishment and could justify the moral argument for the punishment of offenders. The belief is that there is a certain system that is designed to deter criminal behaviour and that crimes must be dealt with robustly. There are two main types of deterrence, individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence is concerned with the offender itself in committing criminal acts and the psychological thinking as opposed to general deterrence which is a message aimed at the wider community or public (Scott and Flynn, 2014). Preventing future crimes through punishment was an idea that developed from the respected works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The argument stated by Beccaria was that the punishment
…show more content…
This approach has dated back historically to the Hammurabi code one of the earliest writings in history. The concept is better understood as just deserts or an eye for an eye attitude . Although this concept has vanished from most parts of the world the idea is one noting. If a criminal acts in a manner against the law they must return something . Linked with this is the rational choice theory the psychologies behind criminal behaviour. It is the deliberate behaviour of an offender to calculate actions by weighing the chance of loss and benefit. (Cornish and Clarke, 2014). Due to this way of thinking criminals become responsible for their actions so they must be punished fittingly. The dispute arises about who decides the severity of punishment and under which guide lines. A widespread disagreement to the retributivist method is about punishements delievered to re-offenders. Undeniably if this was the case then certainly the brutality of punishment should understandably increase. This contradicts the just deserts notion. Therefore the retributivist form of punishment historically provided reasonable grounds for punishment but has now been viewed as too simplistic and failing to bring justice In a non-violent …show more content…
The argument forwarded is that the objective is to rework the criminal into the original state before commiting the offence. This is commonly done through work , training and education this is frequently recognised as the welfare model. The positive of rehabilitation is the emphasis on working with offenders and their strengths rather than their weaknesses , this is done by working on recovery and looking onwards instead of the past (Jaishankar and Ronel, 2013). If successful alteration is acheived by assessing their likelihood of re-offending then rehabilitation is a useful justification for punishment and provides safety for those around. As prior mentioned when one is released from imprisonment an ex offender becomes irresponsible of himself. Therfore rehabilitation works personally with the offender and encourages individual responsibilities. Correspondingly as well as rehabilitating it is also imperative to look beyond the actual punishment itself. Although rehabilitation is a form of control mechanism the prospect of commiting future crimes must not be disregarded .Ex- Offenders should be socially integrated and be in a situation to redress and repair themselves to the state their were originally in. However rehabilitating process is testing due to the prison culture and environment. A survey in England and Wales revealed that over a
This approach has dated back historically to the Hammurabi code one of the earliest writings in history. The concept is better understood as just deserts or an eye for an eye attitude . Although this concept has vanished from most parts of the world the idea is one noting. If a criminal acts in a manner against the law they must return something . Linked with this is the rational choice theory the psychologies behind criminal behaviour. It is the deliberate behaviour of an offender to calculate actions by weighing the chance of loss and benefit. (Cornish and Clarke, 2014). Due to this way of thinking criminals become responsible for their actions so they must be punished fittingly. The dispute arises about who decides the severity of punishment and under which guide lines. A widespread disagreement to the retributivist method is about punishements delievered to re-offenders. Undeniably if this was the case then certainly the brutality of punishment should understandably increase. This contradicts the just deserts notion. Therefore the retributivist form of punishment historically provided reasonable grounds for punishment but has now been viewed as too simplistic and failing to bring justice In a non-violent …show more content…
The argument forwarded is that the objective is to rework the criminal into the original state before commiting the offence. This is commonly done through work , training and education this is frequently recognised as the welfare model. The positive of rehabilitation is the emphasis on working with offenders and their strengths rather than their weaknesses , this is done by working on recovery and looking onwards instead of the past (Jaishankar and Ronel, 2013). If successful alteration is acheived by assessing their likelihood of re-offending then rehabilitation is a useful justification for punishment and provides safety for those around. As prior mentioned when one is released from imprisonment an ex offender becomes irresponsible of himself. Therfore rehabilitation works personally with the offender and encourages individual responsibilities. Correspondingly as well as rehabilitating it is also imperative to look beyond the actual punishment itself. Although rehabilitation is a form of control mechanism the prospect of commiting future crimes must not be disregarded .Ex- Offenders should be socially integrated and be in a situation to redress and repair themselves to the state their were originally in. However rehabilitating process is testing due to the prison culture and environment. A survey in England and Wales revealed that over a