Theories of retribution or reductivism Essay Example

minds.It can designate reprisal or a conclusion, however, it is today more commonly associated with giving the offender him/her just deserts and using punishment as a censure or denunciation. The term retribution originally referred to the repayment of debt (Walker, 1991 in Cavadino, M 2002) an idea which is easily seen in the very old notion of 'an eye for an eye' 'a tooth for a tooth' Lex Talionis (the law of the scale). Punishment is "justified as a means of making those responsible for a crime or harm pay for it" (Cavadino, M 2002).

Punishment is internally related to wrong conduct.Punishment is essential for justice to be exacted. But only those who are guilty are to be punished, and only to the degree to which they are responsible. Finally, the punishment must fit the crime. The notion of desert is central here to the concept of justice that motivates retributivism.The retributive view of punishment is but a rationalization of a primitive urge for revenge; that the retributivists, instead of providing an answer to the question about the source of our moral right to add a new evil (punishment) to an already perpetrated one (the crime), simply assert dogmatically that punishment is an intrinsic good, i.

. something that needs no further moral justification; that it is impossible to apply the lex talionis in practice; that the retributivist thesis that the criminal has a right to punishment is ridiculous, because the criminal himself would be the first to deny that he has any such right; that the retributive theory is incompatible with the claims of forgiveness and mercy; that the practical consequences of the theory

are conservative, the theory itself being in fact an apology for the existing laws and the existing social order (Primorac, I 2003).Retributivist idea takes on board that it is ethically right and good that offenders should suffer. It is found that punishment is deserved and it should also be proportionate to the amount of harm done, the offender owes debt not just to the victim but also to society (Sumner, M 2001 in McLaughlin, E & Muncie, 2001). The desire for revenge theory is that the punishment satisfies the victim's desire for revenge, and the state is exacting vengeance on their behalf to prevent private retaliation. Such a sight finds minute support today.

Expiration requires the offender to work off his guilt; he must be purified through suffering. With this suffering its seen that the offender has purged his guilt, has paid for his crime, and that his account with society is therefore clear. This focus is on the past crime with the attempt to wipe the slate clean (Sumner, M 2001 in McLaughlin, E ; Muncie, 2001). Kant argued that the criminal 'wills' his own punishment - retribution confirms the humanity. Not so much offender 'paying his debt to society.

But state paying its debts to law abiding citizens punishment as a means of expression for public denunciation, taking vendetta out of public alert etc necessary in an ordered society but still an expression of revenge. In murder cases especially where we know that debt cannot be repaid. Retributivist sees punishment as society responding. This presumes a particular type of social stability. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 followed a White Paper, which decreed that the aim

was 'better justice through a more consistent approach to sentencing, so that convicted criminals get their just deserts.Just desert theorists have tended to follow the ideas of Kant that people deserve to be punished if they have broken the law.

Furthermore, all persons ought to bear the significance of obeying the law uniformly. Thus punishment is necessary to remove the benefits gained by the offender. The concept of just deserts has attracted criticism, as there is the suspicion that the idea of desert cannot be distinguished from a standard of reprisal or the disagreeable assertion that two wrongs somehow make a right. There are two main advantages to desert based punishment.Firstly, it imposes limits on the states power in that excessive commendable or incapacitative sentences become deplorable. Secondly, it reduces the unjustifiable sentencing disparity, as two offenders whom commit the same crime will be given similar punishments, irrespective of race, culture or background.

Reductivism is a 'forward looking' theory where it seeks to justify punishment by its alleged future consequences (Cavadino, 2002). It is seen that if punishment is passed, the incidence of crime will be less than it would be if no penalty were imposed.The reductivist theory is supported by the reasoning theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarians are really concerned with maximising the sum of human happiness, 'conceivably argue that penalties severe enough to make a real impact on the frequency of, say, motoring offences would generate more unhappiness than they would prevent (Walker, N 1980 in Duff and Garland, 1994). Jeremy Bentham argues that moral actions are those, which produce 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people' (Cavadine, M 2002).If punishment reduces

future crime, then consequently the pain and suffering caused to the offender may be out weighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other people in the future.

Reductivists are able to compromise with limiting retributivists by accepting maximum penalties. We will find that by looking at statistics, offenders are given longer prison sentences and they are to somewhat extent serving their maximum times. They are also seen to compromise with the retributive principle of 'no penalty without culpability (Walker, N, 1980 in Duff and Garland, 1994:212).From this reductive theory it is seen that punishment reduces crime.

Maybe this is the reason to why so many people are in prison as more people are being found guilty and are being appropriately punished. Deterrence is a way where crime is reduced because of people's fear or apprehension of the punishment they may receive if they offend. Deterrence operates on several levels. Firstly, by individual deterrence it is hoped that the incident of punishment will be very unpleasant that it will show the way to the offender not to re-offend.

Within this theory the job of the sentencer is to look to the future and select the punishment that will have the greatest impact on the individual. It is argued that every time a crime is committed the theory of deterrence is somewhat weakened. It is suggested that when a former criminal is not reconvicted within two years, one cannot tell whether the explanation for that is the rehabilitative effect of custody or its deterrence effect upon him, or a decision taken independently by the offender, or just simple success in avoiding detection (Cavadino, M 2002).With the theory of

deterrence it is possible for punishment to have a more profound subconscious effect on society.

It is seen as educative deterrence as criminals build up habit of not breaking the law in society. This can be seen within theft, as we seen the public morality that stealing is immoral and it is strengthened and the custom of not stealing is toughened.Both retribution and reductivism gives us the idea to why there are so many in prisons; they are getting their just deserts (retribution) and they are finding a way forward (reductivism). Different people would favour different idea to why there are so many are in prison and why crime rate is falling. The main purpose of punishment has the desirable effect of stimulating law-abiding conduct and discouraging crime. Moreover, this may permit the sentencer to lay up the dangerous and with a bit of luck even reform them.