• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What is the Function of Punishment?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What is the Function of Punishment? "Justice must not only be done but seen to be done". Most would agree with this statement - the wicked must surely be punished (or should they? - do two wrongs make a right?) but why is it so important that the punishment must be seen to be done? To the utilitarian the answer is simple - punishment must be witnessed in order to deter others from committing the same act. Thus, to a utilitarian the perception of punishment is seen as the main, or even the sole, justification for punishment. Of course, if the wrongdoer is sent to prison for any length of time he is incapacitated, and thus excluded from doing further harm. Further, while being punished there may be at least the hope that the wrongdoer repents and reforms. Both these consequences are compatible with utilitarian principles as they both serve to reduce the harm caused by anti-social behaviour. Seen in this way punishment can be said to have a tripartite function - to deter, to reform, and to incapacitate. The extent to which any of these functions are successful is a matter of debate, as is the extent to which any one of these functions should take priority. ...read more.

Middle

it sacrifices Justice in the name of some greater good - surely Mabbott is arguing for a greater good just as the utilitarians do? The only difference seems to be that while utilitarians view the greater good as being the maximum happiness, Mabbott sees it as being the maximum social order. It is debatable that Mabbott's claim to be a retributivist can be maintained. In essence Mabbott view it is essentially the Hobbesian view - an argument for social cohesion through social order. The problem with retributive theorists is that they are caught in a bind. To justify punishment they need to show the positive benifits, which means that they have the same problem as the utilitarians (the greater good is often incompatible with justice). On the other hand, to advocate retribution without pointing to some tangible benefit means that they are left with having to explain how retribution can be distinguished from mere vengeance. According to Robert Soloman (1990) this problem stems from the fact that our concept of justice has been overly influence by Kant's philosophical thinking. He argues that Kant was obsessed with rational principles and failed to recognise that humans are psychosocial beings - they are influence by personal relations as well as social standards set by the community. ...read more.

Conclusion

Many argue that it is better to have bad laws than no laws at all. This may be true but it does not follow that lawmakers should abandon their responsibility to punish justly and fairly. If the concept of wrongdoing is to be associated exclusively with law breaking then clearly this is problematic - what if the lawmakers are tyrannical or simply wrong? It seems that any concept of punishment which does not include the concept of justice is self invalidating, otherwise we are simply using punishment as a means to an end, and this will never do because there is always a conflict of interests as to what ends are most beneficial, and for who. Mabbott argues that we cannot justify punishment on moral grounds because of the subjective nature of morality. While it may be true that ideas of right and wrong are culturally and historically subjective, it surely does not follow that we should refrain from making moral judgements. To do this would be to question our capacity to be moral agents at all, which would be an extraordinary indictment of human nature. Incorporated in any concept of punishment must be the concept of justice, and as Strawson points out, incorporated in the concept of justice is the psychological needs of society and especially of the victim. Thus, the purpose of punishment should not only include Justice but must be Justice. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Crime & Deviance section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Crime & Deviance essays

  1. The Justice and welfare debate.

    Furthermore they see this as a direct cause of the individual re-offending and eventually becoming a persistent offender or even starting to commit crimes of a more serious nature.

  2. Functionalist accountDurkheim argues that crime is a universal feature of all societies. This is ...

    Equally important, Durkheim, while accepting the relative nature of crime, also seems to think that some acts seem constant, in terms of being defined as criminal, in all societies. That is, he recognises a minimum content of 'natural law'. Finally, Durkheim, while regarding a certain rate of crime as a

  1. Referring to the John Duffy "Railway Rapist" case to illustrate, discuss the strengths and ...

    Holmes (1989) reports that out of 192 offender In the UK the ability of profiling to accurately identify a culprit is felt to be limited. Copson and Holloway (1997) in a survey found that detectives felt that profiling led to the identification of the offender in only 2.7% of cases and 'helped to solve' 16% of cases.

  2. The Evolution of Punishment.

    Imprisonment was imposed as a special way of punishment. Punishment by prison was seen as a highly slandered situation for a source of punishment as the tribunals were empowered in sentences. Prison was seen to be a way to dictate and prevent those accused of crime or as an appropriate way of making someone do as they are told.

  1. A Failing Justice System

    An old criminal is suspected to steal an item, because the same item is also stolen. According to nowadays' laws, he is arrested and goes to penitentiary until he is proven innocent. When the police cannot prove that the crime actually took place, they ask for proof that shows the item is not stolen.

  2. Punishment is difficult to apply in the workplace. Explain why, what might be done ...

    Punishment administered for poor performance leads to increased performance but without significant satisfaction. It can be handled poorly or it can be handled well in a workplace but it's the punishing agents challenge to know when to use this strategy and how to use it correctly.

  1. Criminal justice policy.

    They would be capable of understanding why they were involved and what mediation was trying to achieve for themselves and for their victim's wellbeing. Crucially, I feel the most constructive outcome in restorative justice schemes is that the offenders will be helped to recognise and understand the true impact of

  2. Assess the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Different Aims of Punishment

    an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. The idea being that the criminal must repay society that an injustice would be done if someone could inflict pain without having it inflicted upon him. Here retribution links in with the "utilitarian" theory as retribution also has a deterrent effect.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work