Austy Thana, Asia And Me Analysis

Showing people that commit these atrocious crimes that this behavior remains intoleratable and that a punishment that fits every crime exists shows what is necessary to detour future criminals. If more criminals believe that they can be caught, tried and executed they will be less inclined to commit such heinous crimes. If we as a government do not execute murderers that in turn could have deterred other murders, then we have allowed the killings to continue and innocent victims to die. Lowe concludes, “The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their

Though forgiveness and clemency matter significantly in social life, they play comparatively small roles in criminal justice system. The criminal procedure is dominated by the State whose interests in deterring, debilitating and imposing retribution leave little room for forgiveness. However, justice need not be so austere, intangible and uncongenial. A more modified, concrete criminal justice system could give much better credence to the benefit and needs of the offenders, victims and members of the society. An offender usually inflicts both physical and psychological injuries upon a victim. This kind of an action on the part of the offender, justifies the victim’s resentment of the offender. The resentment protests the injustice of the wrong, the victim’s self-worth, and the wrong-doer’s abuse of his moral agency.

It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

Sayre-McCord’s paper discusses the idea that there is a distinct difference between punishment and legal reparations. He states that punishment is to bring pain to another who has committed an offense. He says this raises moral concerns because that is what defines punishment. However, reparations do not aim to inflict pain but to create a way for the offender to make amends with the person or people he/she has inflicted pain to. The offender that has committed the crime still has rights and they can also deserve a second chance. He says that some crimes are more severe than others where the criminal does not have that right anymore to be punished by making legal reparations, however, most crimes are not like that. Thus, he argues that the best solution for most

Cesare Beccaria’s publication of “On Crimes and Punishment” has become a handbook in criminology world. Although Beccaria publication was meant for his country of Italy to make the criminal justice system more ethical and efficient (Raymond. 2010), many other countries (U.S. included) adopted some of Beccaria’s principles. Beccaria’s believed in “swift and severe punishment for deterrence of crime and the U.S justice system still uses this theory to today. I feel that the U.S justice system uses severe and swift differently than other countries might convict their criminals. With the U.S justice system once a criminal is arrested and sent to jail depending on the crime, the city, how many cases the court house has and the bail set, the criminal could be

the institutions of criminal justice, particularly among social groups already alienated from society.” Of course I am to understand that Victimless crime can cause distress to others in some way, fashion or form, but so long as they have not directly intended to harm others, or did not directly harm another being, their sentences should be the maximum of 1-5 years, and should not have to suffer, from their rights being taken away as they did not actively deny the rights of other living, sentient beings. Those accused of more violent crimes, if it is your choice to incarcerate them, it is our duty to make sure that they never have the chance to hurt others again, and should be kept in prison for the maximum sentences possible. Looking back

He supports his claim by first listing punishments using public shaming which shows that it is better than the alternatives such as jail where there is almost no rehabilitation, then by emphasizing all the cons to using prison to punish a criminal instead of public shaming such as drug abuse, crime in prison, expensive, and inhumane conditions, then by explaining the effectiveness it would have especially on victimless crimes and younger people since they care more about their status, and finally by highlighting that creative sentences are more useful sometimes than prison such as the case of teenagers selling drugs, shaving their heads and other embarrassing acts is better than incarceration. Doe’s purpose is to make clear that public humiliation is efficient and sufficient in many cases of crime. He adopts a persuasive tone for readers curious on the law system and unusual

With the development of society, prison sentences has become a hot topic among people. On one hand, as the East weekly reported that more than 200 criminals composition of a village after releasing out are still keeping the prison habit after sentence (Easy weekly, 2011). Long-term prison sentence would have a great impact on people's physical and mental health. On the other hand, in the rencent year, the proportion of crimes committed by the short sentence increased from 5.2% to 51%, which has been significantly higher than the long-term offender sentence. There are different opinions among people, prison sentences should be the longer the better? Everything has two sides and whether the prison sentence should be longer or shorter is not an exception, it has both advantages and disadvantages. People’s opinions vary from person to person, however, in terms of our opinions, prison sentence is the shorter the better.

Humans come to situation in their life with issues happening daily, which will bring the bad and good out of people. Situations get out of control and get corrupt; Humans make dumb silly mistakes, which will end badly for yourself or the people being around you. At the end of the day people need to be forgiven and brought into the community, but with the circumstance of the issue the person has committed, it is to be carefully dealt with. You can either say the victim has to deal with the punishment and get rehabilitation or say he is never to be let back in the community no matter what.

A question that all criminal justice professionals ask themselves is whether or not our justice system is up to the challenge of doing what it originally set out to do: “protect society from criminals, to punish those who commit crimes, and to make criminals better able to return to society once they have finished their sentences” (Topsfield Foundation, 1996). Although the American system of justice has made great advancements in meeting these goals, one fact that exists is that placing criminals in prison does not benefit everyone.

Although it may not be at the forefront of our minds, the current situation regarding prisons and punishment is worth discussing. On the matter of this often overlooked topic, Pope John Paul II said “Not to promote the interest of prisoners would be to make imprisonment a mere act of vengeance of the part of society, provoking only hatred in the prisoners themselves.” (July, 2000) The prison system is a global issue that affects the "human potential, free will and innate goodness in man." (Lyons, 2003) The issue is in regard to how offenders are punished when incarcerated and debates what theory of punishment offenders should serve their sentence under. There are many forms of punishment adopted by institutions in order effectively punish prisoners. These methods of punishment are diverse in both procedures and outcomes; however they all maintain the same objective – to successfully punish offenders. While Catholics endorse a combination between reforming and rehabilitating both offenders and victims, Islam prefers a harsh deterrent and retributive approach using fear of punishment as an incentive to not engage in criminal activity and from a completely secular perspective both protective punishment and deterrent punishment can be deemed appropriate. But conflict of theories from different points of views raise the ethical question of how do we effectively punish offenders without crossing moral and ethical boundaries?

Punishment is a necessary evil and punishment is evoked when someone is believed to have done wrong. It symbolizes and erects moral judgment and sustains solidarity and collective consciousness. [Cesaroni 2010]

The assumption that by punishing the offender the victim receives 'justice’ is of dubious value today because of the decreasing number of successful investigations and the still smaller number of convictions in the criminal justice system. If the victim gets back his lost property he is lucky; if he is not harassed and humiliated in the investigative and trial procedures he should thank his stars. Given the sickening delay, corruption and technicalities in proof, many victims tend to keep away from reporting crimes and sometimes take recourse to private vengeance. Either way, the criminal justice system suffers in not being able to prevent crimes or to punish the guilty when crimes occur in society. The long-term implications of the