Punishment Philosophies free essay sample

The processes by which justice is applied are determined largely by proposed punishment philosophies. These express various concerns and arguments regarding appropriate sentencing and treatment. The philosophy of rehabilitation dominates the proceedings of juvenile courts, and is heavily scrutinized at an adult level, or when the criminal behavior of juveniles continues to accelerate, but when successful is most beneficial for society. The appeals process advances the fair practice of law, helps ensure the rights of due process, and continues to clarify and define justice and the law.Punishment Philosophies The universality of justice is a predominant concern of any nation that strives for true democracy, and in the U. S. , this pursuit is largely undertaken in the court system. If the general basis for an action to constitute a crime lies in the willful and unsanctioned dispossession of anothers life, liberty, or property, then the punitive power of the state to deprive the transgressor of these same rights, in the name of justice, must be exacted with a similar degree of concern. To this end, a variety of punishment philosophies, giving differing weight to the interests of victims, criminals, and society, have developed to clarify the notion, and to influence the practice of justice. While the philosophies of deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution, and restoration can be perceived to prioritize the considerations of victims and society, the handling of youth offenders in juvenile courts, as well as the appellate process, are expressions of consideration for the accused. It is largely agreed upon that punishment for the sole purpose of vengeance is detrimental to the ideals of justice and civility.Sentencing Considerations Sentencing for a crime is contingent upon numerous factors, which involve societal values, precedents, and individual judicial discretion; criminal statutes that vary by state and at a federal level set standard punishments for specific offenses, predominantly based on seriousness and criminal history. Sentencing guidelines, which are a reflection of political climate, social concerns, and punishment philosophies, have been criticized as a factor in prison overpopulation, and for being incompatible with a restorative punishment philosophy.The benefit of these guidelines, however, is that they encourage uniformity in the application of punishment, eliminating discrepancies that could arise as a result of judicial discretion, provide increased predictability for better resource management, and allow communities to focus punitive efforts on the areas of crime that most concern them, ideally reducing the sociological impacts of specific types of crime.For some offense, compulsory sentencing establishes a mandatory minimum incarceration period, which, if supplemented by the policy of truth-in-sentencing, ensures that an offender serve no less than this nondiscretionary requirement. Aside from these, most sentencing is determined through judicial discretion, derived from subscribed precedents, considerations of mitigating factors, and community standards. Overlying all sentencing are the ideological concerns expressed through influential punishment philosophies (Lubitz ; Ross, 2001). PhilosophiesPunishment philosophies represent opinions as to what degree and form of punishment is appropriate, how and to whom it is beneficial, and what is represented in terms of societal values. Because the courts have the power to deprive an offender of property, through fines, seizures, and restitution, liberty, through incarceration, mandatory treatment facilities, and court-ordered service programs, and even life, through the most severe form of punishment, the death penalty, it is imperative that some justification be provided to a society whose sophistication and dignity are thereby judged.While ideology of retribution remains a significant philosophical view in the assessments of applied justice, many would agree that its antiquated eye for an eye approach has little place in civilized discussions of progressive ethics, despite the apparent, i mmediate restoration of moral equilibrium (Grant ; Meyer, 2003). One of the most widely applicable philosophies is deterrence, which is the concept that the threat of punishment should prevent criminal activity.Deterrence can be experienced in one of two ways; the first is specific deterrence, which occurs when an offender becomes less likely to reoffend as a result of punishment that he or she has undergone, while the second, more preferable form is through general deterrence, by which individuals abstain from criminal activity due to the recognition that others have been correspondingly punished. The psychological effectiveness of deterrence largely depends upon three factors: Celerity, severity, and certainty. The celerity, or swiftness with which punishment is imposed, is critical in the sense that individuals are inherently less likely to be concerned with negative consequences that will be experienced at a more distant time. Essentially, the immediate benefit of a crime is perceived to be more real than those future consequences. Related to this is the certainty or likelihood of punishment; if types of crimes are perceived to go largely undetected or unpunished, the potential deterrence is diminished.Severity, or degree of punishment, can have a negative impact at either extreme; a penalty that is not severe enough would fail to outweigh the benefit of the transgression while a penalty that is excessively harsh might prevent a jury from convicting an offender. Because the death penalty is such an extreme form of punishment, prosecutors must carefully consider a jurys potential reluctance to convict if it is a probable outcome (Grant Meyer, 2003).A more successful argument, with regard to capital- and other severe crimes, is incapacitation, which promotes the safety of society through incarceration of offenders. Proponents of the death penalty would maintain that it is the only version of incapacitation that ensures protection from the most dangerous offenders. Prisons and jails also serve to incapacitate criminals, thus insulating the public during periods of incarceration, while intensive supervision and treatment facilities also serve this function to a lesser degree.Perhaps more progressive are the philosophies of restoration, which focuses on the victim and society by allowing an offender to restore balance through compensation to the victim or society by paying fees, restitution, serving jail time, or performing community service, and rehabilitation, which focuses on the offender and his/her relationship to society.The idea that sentencing and incarceration should be rehabilitative has stimulated early release programs, usually through parole boards, for imprisoned offenders who exhibit positive behavior, participate in treatment programs, inside and outside of prison, and pursue higher levels of education while incarcerated (Grant Meyer, 2003). Juvenile Justice The rehabilitation philosophy may have its most significant impact on t he proceedings of juvenile courts, which can handle cases involving youth offenders under the age of eighteen.It is a tenet of the juvenile justice system that young offenders are often malleable enough to be rehabilitated before the momentum of criminal behavior leads them to increasingly severe crimes and adult institutions. Offenders younger than eighteen may be tried as adults, however, based on statutory exclusion, in which specific legislation allows for this based on age and/or degree of violation, judicial waiver, during which certain due process protections must be granted, including the right to a jury trial, or concurrent jurisdiction, in which the prosecutor has the option of trying an offender as an adult.If it is concluded that the case should be heard in a juvenile court, ideally the focus should be less on accountability and more on behavioral causes and reformation (Henning, 2009). Appellate Process Another aspect of the criminal justice system that can significantly address the concerns of the accused is the appeals process. Appeals, which are granted by statutory provision, are petitions for review of the legality of a lower courts judgment by an appellate court that must be petitioned for by a party with a legally-recognizable interest in the case.The appeals process is a safeguard against violations of due process, which must relate to substantive or procedural issues in which the law has been improperly applied or legal procedures have been improperly followed. Generally, an issue must have been raised during the trial and apply to the final decision for an appellate court to hear the case, for which the appellant bears the burden of proof. Appeals must be made to the appropriate court, in ascending hierarchy, of which the U. S.Supreme Court is supreme in federal cases, or state cases that concern a constitutional issue, but only after all state level ave nues have been exhausted. The right of judicial review is granted to supreme courts, allowing them to rule on the constitutionality of legislative, executive, and lower judicial decisions that have been challenged, also the precedents set by appellate courts are binding to the lower courts within their jurisdictions, and the decisions of federal courts, with regard to constitutional issues, are usually binding on state courts.Not only is the appeals process important to convicted individuals who may have their judgments remanded or reversed based on new technologies, legal issues, or shifts in societal values, but it is also responsible for shaping and clarifying points of law, which then becomes part of the legal landscape (Grant ; Meyer, 2003). Conclusion The pursuit of justice is the pursuit of greater equality through the elimination of victimization at all levels.The punishment of those who victimize others is an agenda whose moral implications are confronted through a variety of applicable philosophies that should take into account the greater good of society, the concerns of the victim, and the rights of the accused. Though preference is traditionally given to the victim and society, the implications of stripping the accused of unalienable rights must be given due consideration.The strength of utilitarian and qualitative arguments must be considered alongside those of individual rights and the potential for rehabilitation. Though the appeals process may sometimes result in suspensions of justice, it helps to guarantee protection against victimization at the hands of the justice system. The severity of sentencing demands continued examination however, as new DNA evidence and writs of habeas corpus are of little comfort to exonerated corpses.