An analysis of capital punishment as means of retribution

The collapse of the Roman Empire led to a reassertion of private justice in the 5th century ce. You believe that all life is sacred? At its core is the principle of equal and direct retribution, as expressed in Exodus In addition, offenders An analysis of capital punishment as means of retribution be punished only for the guilty acts they actually commit; those who plan a murder but succeed only in wounding a victim, for example, should not be punished as harshly as those who actually carry out the murder.

The McVeigh case, however, may have less to do with deterrence than with retribution and it raises a stark question: This punishment is intended to be sufficient that people would choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment.

Other critics note that it is not feasible to establish a satisfactory scale of punishments for crimes. Part of that transformation was due to attempts by the crown to monopolize financial penalties, but other changes sprang from the inability of the system to include adequate consideration of the victim as more than a mere target of crime.

Others note that punishing criminals just because they have acted inappropriately does not address any underlying issues that may have led to the crimes in the first place.

For God, all things are possible. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done [11] and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined. Imprisonment separates offenders from the community, removing or reducing their ability to carry out certain crimes.

The value of retribution cannot be cheapened by using it to compensate for inadequacies of the justice system.

Principles[ edit ] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyretributive justice is committed to three principles: But these are only the minimum harms, suffered by the least vulnerable inmates in the best-run prisons.


Under retributive justice schemes, it is also important that offenders actually be guilty of the crime for which a penalty has been imposed. The victim suffered only the injury, but the offender must suffer both the injury and the anxiety of waiting for the injury to be imposed as punishment.

Punishment has been justified as a measure of retributive justice[7] in which the goal is to try to rebalance any unjust advantage gained by ensuring that the offender also suffers a loss.

Over time, restoration was relegated to sporadic efforts fashioned by creative counseland other justice philosophies such as deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution moved to the forefront. I would be thankful that he had found a perspective that had broadened and deepened his sense of human community; but given our legal system and our societal structure, I think I would say he must be executed.

Because deterrence was not formally described until the 18th century and rehabilitation did not achieve a following until the 19th, restoration was initially replaced by retribution and incapacitation which was essentially achieved through execution or maiming owing to the lack of detention facilities.

He said that, "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.

National polls disclose a sharp difference in attitudes about executing McVeigh and about capital punishment generally. The pending execution of Timothy McVeigh has wide public support, especially here in Oklahoma City; but that support has not translated into general support for capital punishment itself.

For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has already been committed. And one life cannot be more sacred than another life?

By sentencing offenders for the culpability they possessed or appeared to possess and then allowing victims to sue for whatever damages were fitting, the justice system was able to create a consistent schema.

Proportionality[ edit ] Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be related to the severity of the offending behaviour. This will be the first federal execution, an execution on behalf of all Americans, in almost 40 years.

When the punishment involves a fine, the theory does not allow the financial position of an offender to be considered, leading to situations in which a poor individual and a millionaire could be forced to pay the same amount.

Retributive justice

Retributive justice Criminal activities typically give a benefit to the offender and a loss to the victim. This remark may seem trivially true, but the history of humankind is littered with examples of the deliberate infliction of harm by well-intentioned persons in the vain pursuit of ends which that harm did not further, or in the successful pursuit of questionable ends.

The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence.

Similarly, those convicted of witchcraft or heresy were burned at the stake.

Capital Punishment: Retribution or Justice?

Today, we have a special report on the capital punishment debate among people of faith. If you were to be persuaded that he has found Jesus and sought forgiveness, would you feel the same way? The death penalty does this in a permanent and irrevocable way.

Some penalties designed to punish culpable behaviour by individuals were specifically tied to outlawed acts. Because punishment must be deserved and follow culpable actions, it is inappropriate to deny individuals the consequences of their actions.

And if he somehow could find redemption? As Christians, we judge him.CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT before the Royal Commission on ‘Capital Punishment’ expressed the following view: “The punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the non alios means punishment belongs to the guilty, and not others.

It punishes. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that holds that the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the offense, inflicted because the offender deserves the punishment.


Prevention of future crimes (deterrence) or rehabilitation of the offender are not considered in. Retributive justice: Retributive justice, response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and the compensation of victims.

In general, the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Retribution appears alongside restorative principles in law codes from the. Of the four justifications, only retribution is part of the definition of punishment and none of the other justifications is a guaranteed outcome, aside from obvious exceptions such as an executed man being incapacitated with regard to further crimes.

Death Penalty, Retribution and Penal Policy, The Jack P. Gibbs Follow this and additional works THE DEATH PENALTY, RETRIBUTION AND PENAL POLICY JACK P.

GIBBS* not rejecting capital punishment as unconstitu. are being treated as a means to an end. If a criminal is punished too little or not at all, perhaps of capital punishment.

In a Gallup poll, 48% of respondents cited retribution as the basis retributive argument for the death penalty has considerable appeal. Murderers have committed.

An analysis of capital punishment as means of retribution
Rated 5/5 based on 38 review