We often hear stories of crime and punishment in the news, but the main focus is nearly always on the details of the crime and trial. When we hear about the final sentencing of the case, we may be infuriated by the sentence, or satisfied that the legal system has done its job. We make an automatic assumption that punishment – be it community service, jail-time, or death – is the natural resolve to crime. But we forget to address a crucial part of the whole judicial system: what is the purpose of punishment? Why do we punish people the way we do in our system? What do we want to come out of the punishment? Is the purpose to inflict pain upon those who hurt society, for retribution? Or is it to protect society from further harm? Punishment and crime has co-existed as long as man can remember, but crime still takes place, so why do we still do it? These are just some of the questions I will be exploring in this blog. As I delve further into this topic, I hope to invoke deeper thought on why we punish, and why the means by which we punish have changed. In doing so, I hope to rediscover the original purpose of punishment so that we don’t blindly accept it as the only alternative to resolve crime.
5 comments:
Since living as a society increases our likelihood of survival and natural selection therefore tends to choose those individuals that are social over antisocial, maybe the impulse to use a justice system to establish rules for this society is selective as well.
Does any state have a rehabilitative program (teaches skills in any way, seems to make more of an effort toward that way than toward punishment) that you discovered?
Punishment is a means of teaching a person a lesson when they have wronged. The dread of receiving a certain chastisement prevents one from committing a deed to receive it. One would think this would prevent people from partaking in crime. Due to our innate human nature, however, everyone is imperfect. Crime can derive from one’s inaccessibility to certain resources, or from the aspect of human nature that causes one to do whatever it takes to better one’s personal interest, even if it is at the expense of others. While struggle in existence and competition embedded in the human character continue to evolve, crime will arise. Punishment can not prevent these aspects from occurring.
The instigation of punishment is debatable on the idea of whether or not people seek revenge through reprimanding or if punishment serves to protect society. While punishment is necessary to instill guidelines for the way in which society operates, often times it serves as retribution for those affected by the crime. It seems that usually those who are affected personally by a certain misdeed are more likely to seek punishment as a means of revenge. This notion stems from the idea that those affected want those responsible to feel the same pain that arose due to the crime. Even though our society is still not void of all crime, how much greater do you think the crime rate would be without the fear of penalty?
Punishment is, without a doubt, necessary in society. We could not function as a whole without it. It is crucial because we have rules and regulations that we came up with ourselves and therefore have to follow. When not followed, there needs to be a consequence that goes along with it. Society could not function without these laws, therefore without the punishments that go along with breaking them, there would be complete chaos.
Punishment serves many purposes in our society, but the principle itself seems to have evolved from the idea of "eye for an eye". Retribution has clearly remained a major purpose of punishment. Without retribution how will we learn from our mistakes? In essence punishment given by the penal system serves the same purpose as punishment that is given by a parent to his or her child.
I agree that often times the punishment does not fit the nature of the crime, but by no means should this be a cause of ridding society of punishment altogether. Punishment is a necessity to society in order to create order. It is simple, those who are good should be rewarded and those who make mistakes should be punished.
Are we not teaching them anything if we just simply tell them what they did was wrong? It is hard to know what the correct punishment is for anyone, everyone has different views on it. Even when it comes to raising kids, there has been an on going debate on what is the correct punishment. But I think the main thing to keep in mind here, is that the jury is being offered evidence on neutral grounds and is not their to only punish the guilty, but to teach them a lesson, to further help them along in our society. The jury is judging their peers. Our country is based on the people's opinions, therefore how to teach someone a lesson is being given into the discretion of the people. When a child acts out, do we not put them in time out? Is that a form of jail? Do we not yell and tell them what they did was wrong and take away their dessert? It is not to inflict pain, it is to teach a lesson. When an adult figure acts like a child by violating rights he/she knows, should they not be treated like one?
Post a Comment