Criminal activity generally provides benefits to the abuser and loss to the victim. [49] [50] [51] [52] The sentence was justified as a measure of retaliatory justice,[16][53][54][55] in an attempt to offset any undue advantage by ensuring that the perpetrator also suffered a loss. Sometimes seen as a means of “corresponding” to an evildoer – the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as a desired goal in itself, even if it has no restorative benefit to the victim. One of the reasons companies have imposed sanctions is to reduce the perceived need for “street justice” retaliation, bloody bickering, and vigilante justice. The justifications for punishment are retaliation,[15] deterrence, rehabilitation and neutralization. These could include measures such as solitary confinement to prevent the abuser`s contact with potential victims, or removing a hand to make theft more difficult. [16] The belief that the ultimate punishment of an individual is to be sent by God, the highest authority, to an existence in hell, a place supposed to exist in the hereafter, generally corresponds to the sins committed during his lifetime. Sometimes these distinctions are specific, with damned souls suffering for each sin committed (see, for example, Plato`s myth or Dante`s Divine Comedy), but sometimes they are general, with condemned sinners banished to one or more chambers of hell or to a level of suffering. There are also arguments against the notion of punishment, which requires intelligence, based on studies of punishment in very small brained animals such as insects. There is evidence that honey bees exhibit mutations that make them fertile for laying eggs only when other bees are not observing them, and that the few people caught red-handed are killed. [ref. needed] This is confirmed by computer simulations proving that a few simple reactions within mainstream opinions about insects` extremely limited intelligence are enough to mimic the “political” behavior observed in great apes. The authors argue that this refutes the claim that punishment has evolved as a strategy for dealing with individuals who can know what they are doing.
[28] In the case of minor offences, the penalty may be for the offender to “make amends” or make amends to the victim. Civil service or compensation orders are examples of this type of punishment. [56] In restorative justice models, victims play an active role in a process with their abusers, who are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions “to repair the damage they have caused – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or performing community service.” [57] The restorative justice approach is intended to help the perpetrator avoid future crimes. A unified sentencing theory combines several criminal law objectives – such as reprisal, deterrence and rehabilitation – into a single, coherent framework. Instead of punishing us for having to choose between them, uniform theorists argue that they work together as part of a larger goal such as the protection of rights. [62] Some critics of the parenting and whistleblowing model cite evolving problems with the idea that a sense of punishment develops as a social signaling system when punishment is not effective. Critics argue that some people who devote time and energy and take risks to punish others, and the possible loss of punished group members, would have been chosen against her if punishment had no function other than signals that could evolve to work with less risky means. [60] [61] [page needed] Under section 69 of the Crime and Public Order Act 1998,[31] there is a new community regulation called the Action Plan Order that courts can impose on offenders under the age of 18. In the government`s white paper No More Excuses, the government stated that it was “intended to be an intensive, short-term program of community-based interventions combining punishment, rehabilitation and reparation to change criminal behaviour and other crimes.” [32] The Action Plan orders place the offender under supervision, setting out the requirements that the offender must meet in relation to his or her actions and, if applicable, for a period of three months.
Recent Comments