Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
2.2 discuss aims of punishment - Coggle Diagram
2.2 discuss aims of punishment
retribution- punishment of wrongdoers
pay back- display of public revulsion for the offence- way of society sin victims to get some kind os justice or compensation for what the offender did to them
eye for an eye
offered should be made to suffer for their wrongdoings
backward looking approach- looks simply back at what has been done and punishes it
no attempt to alter future behaviour.
sentencing coucnil helps with proportionality by giving guidelines
crimes motivated by hate are given an uplift to show part of retribution is to represent moral outrage, for example gah is given 5 years but if driven by race it is uplifted to 7 years.
functionalisiam- retribution allows to express the outrage of society and thus helps to reinforce social norms
rehabilitation- reforming those who have committed offences
forward looking- helping them change the behaviour for the future
drug and alcohol abuse programmes
anger management courses
education and training that helps a person rescinder their behaviour ad rationally chose alternatives
might be seen as good as they help the person find meaningful work in society, which could in turn help them to remain law abiding
requires a lot of joined up workig with different agencies in the CJS both inside and outside prison- requires commitment from individual
deterrence- reduction of crime through deterrence
put people off committing offences as the consequences are unpleasant
individual- administers to particular individua
l- use of suspended sentence- only comes into effect if the person reoffends. short sharp shock approach was used as a policy In juvenile detention centres- to put people off reoffending
general- people in the community witness someone being punished
and this deters them from committing crime to avoid punishment themselves- in the past people were publicly punished- in the stocks, executions floggings, today people may be posted in the media
severity vs uncertainty
however severe the punishment may be, if there. is little chance of being caught then it is unlikely o deter people from offending
for example there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years in prison for a 3rd burglary but only 5% of reported burglary result in a successful conviction
on the other hand if the offender is very likely to be caught, a mild punishment may be a deterrent
public protection- protecting the public.
making it physically impossible for criminals to offend again
extreme includes execution, banishment, chemical castration of sex offenders
less extreme includes curfews, electronic tags, driving bans, travel bans for example football hooligans
crime sentences act 1997 introduced standard sentences for specific offences eg 7 years minimum if a person ha a third conviction for class a drug trafficking
in production of indeterminate sentencing, for people deemed a danger to society
biological theroies- if it can be shown that criminals are born that way and it is not possible to rehabilitate them, lombroso argued that they should be sent away to remote islands.
reparation- making reparation by offenders to those people affected by their crimes
allows the person to make amends
eg property crime- person could be told to compensate the victim fro the damage with a compensation order
someone has damaged public property, the person couldn be sentenced to community payback which may involve cleaning rubbish from parks or cleaning graffiti
restorative justice is a type of reparation
involved the offender and victim meeting together with a facilitator, the victim can tell the offender the effect the crim had on them, the offender listens and hs the chance to say sorry, this can also be done in writing, offender can express remorse and seek forgiveness
Durkheim favoured this, as ut allows them to be ale to return to a harmonious state in society
criminal justice act 2003