Systems of criminal justice use punishment to discourage, disable, rehabilitate, exact revenge, and make amends.
By instilling dread in the defendant and the public, punishment administered with the intention of deterrence is intended to stop the commission of the crime or error in the future. The suffering inflicted on the individual receiving punishment by the punishing person or body teaches the public, who may not have participated in the punishment, valuable lessons. Punishments can prevent crime directly or implicitly. As a result, according to De Keijser, specific deterrence occurs when a person receiving punishment from the government, for example, refrains from committing the same crime out of concern for receiving a comparable or even worse punishment. (2000). When punishment is administered to achieve general deterrence, the penalty of an individual or a group of people instills some knowledge about the pain and suffering the defendants have suffered for their crime in the rest of the public. As a result, the public becomes less likely to commit the same offense for fear of being punished the same way or even worse. For example, it is more likely that the public will fear falling victims of the same prosecution after learning that the defendant who had been convicted of committing murder has been sentenced to life in prisons or has been given a death penalty.
Incapacitation
Punishment is sometimes meant to target the defendant and remove him or her from amongst people to prevent reoccurrence of the criminal act in the society. Unlike other purposes that are preventive, incapacitation is more of a reaction instigated by security concerns than not. In the preventive purposes of punishment, the offenders are removed from the society with the aim of improving them while in incapacitation, the criminals have locked away from the community because we fear them (Walgrave, 2013). Examples of the punishment serving the purpose of incapacitation are house arrest and execution following a death penalty.
Rehabilitation
Punishment can be targeted at reforming the behavior of the offenders, and as a result, reducing the chances of the crime reoccurring. The government in this effect will take the criminal to educational centers and vocational programs where he will receive regular counseling and treatment over a period until the offenders show signs of not being able to repeat the offense (Roberts, 2002). Offenders can be rehabilitated, incarcerated, probated and paroled at the same time to achieve the best outcome from a punishment. For the same possibility, the courts in some states in the United States have made it mandatory for nonviolent drug offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs coupled with probation but not submitting them to incarceration. The abovementioned approach to punishment has been found to significantly lower the loads in the jails and prisons as well as reduce reoffending.
Retribution
According to Roberts (2002), retribution is the removal of the desire for personal advancement against the defendant by the offended. The angry would want to react to an offense committed against them in the form an assault, criminal homicide, and battery among others. When the courts punish the offenders well, the public learns of it, and their faith in the justice system increases. As a consequence, their satisfaction on the criminal justice working effectiveness prevents them from reacting violently against the offenders when they come back to the society.
Restitution
Restitution is the process through which the courts or the justice system in place punishes the offenders by charging them a given amount of money. For example, the courts can order the criminal to pay the victim of their crimes a given sum of money for any harm caused or for the damages. The courts can order the offender to pay retribution for physical injuries, property damages, money loss and emotional distress. Also, the revenge in many cases also serves as a fine that covers a certain amount of costs incurred in the process of criminal prosecution and administering punishment (De Keijser, 2000).
The different forms of punishment differ in their significance and the manner in which they can achieve effectiveness when applied. According to my view, the purposes of punishment ranked as follows in order of importance.
1. Rehabilitation
2. Deterrence
3. Incapacitation
4. Retribution
5. Restitution
Rehabilitation is the best purpose of punishment because it involves the use of rehabilitation, incarceration, probation, and parole achieving the best result ever. It also aims at improving the offenders rather than arming them for the crimes they committed. Deterrence is better that incapacitation because it serves as an example for others who then will fear to commit the same crimes committed by the offender while incapacitation seeks to eliminate the offender from the society without giving them a chance to reform. It is informed by fear for the offender rather than the intent of exercising a corrective measure. Retribution helps both parties to an offense to come to terms with the situation the best way. Lastly, restitution can give away for the rich to buy their way into the justice system.
In conclusion, punishments are administered to serves as a deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution and restitution. They all differ in significance.
References
De Keijser, J. W. (2000). Punishment and purpose: from moral theory to punishment in action. Thela Thesis.
Roberts, J. V. (2002). Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime, and justice. Routledge.
Walgrave, L. (2013). Restorative Justice, Self-interest Responsible Citizenship. Willan.
