...which the offender belonged to and the writing task. In the study there were 6 male and 27 female psychology students they participated to aid in writing their research paper. Participants read a fictional scenario and were then asked to determine a fine and answer four questions that judged fairness and justice. The hypothesis was that the ingroup would judge deviant ingroup members higher on a retributive justice scale and give them a higher fine. The results of this study showed that when it came to justice the ingroup rated deviant ingroup members lower then the outgroup but created a higher fine. Expectations of an Ingroup: interactions within ingroups and how they punish deviant members In society people are divided into two groups the ingroup and the outgroup both Social Identity Theory and the Black Sheep Effect deal with the idea of these two types of groups. Social Identity Theory is the expectation the ingroup offenders would be treated less harsh than outgroup offenders (Gollwitzer & Keller, 2010). While the Black Sheep Effect states that people see unlikable ingroup members more adversely than unlikeable outgroup members (van Prooijen & Lam, 2007). The theory that these two support is that ingroup members judge deviant ingroup members more harshly than they would outgroup members. Gollwitzer and Keller (2010) hypothesized that a repeat ingroup offender would be given a more harsh punishment than a first time ingroup offender or an outgroup offender and that...
Words: 1929 - Pages: 8
...Restorative Justice vs. Retributive Justice Can restorative justice be utilized more often than retributive justice? Restorative justice is a concept that is not fully accepted in the field of criminology. The theory presents an alternative way of reviewing criminal justice procedures. The main issues are repairing the harm done, and building relationships between the victim and offenders, rather than strict punishment of the offender. Restorative justice is an excellent concept. However, it is an substitute process which the criminal justice has at its disposal. The premise for retributive justice is the punishment of the offender, resultig in jail and/or imprisonment. There is no consideration given to repairing the harm caused by offender...
Words: 1087 - Pages: 5
...Justice is another important ethical standard. Justice involves protecting individual rights, or preventing an injustice to an individual. Justice also requires us to compare cases to avoid discriminating or treating people differently who are alike in relevant respects. Succinctly, it means treating people fairly. Issues involving questions of justice and fairness are usually divided into three categories, that of distributive justice, retributive justice and compensatory justice. Distributive justice, a theory based on writings of John Rawls, perhaps the most basic category, is concerned with the fair distribution of society’s benefits and burdens. Rawls felt that everything must be done in an act of achieving fairness throughout. He also did not want anything to be done that may hurt or damage another person. For example, Rawls felt that throughout a society, every demographic should be allowed the same treatment and goods as any other. The poor should receive the same health care as the rich, etc. (Lamont, 2002). Questions of distributive justice arise when different people put forth conflicting claims on society’s benefits and burdens and all the claims cannot be satisfied. The essential cases are those where there is a insufficiency of benefits such as jobs, food, housing, medical care, wealth and income as compared with the numbers and desires of the people who want these goods. The other side of the coin is that there may be too many burdens, that of unpleasant...
Words: 1677 - Pages: 7
...2.) Liberty is defined as a contested moral and political principle that seeks to identify the condition in which human beings are able to govern themselves. Liberty is interpreted by roles of individuals in society; therefore, liberty has different descriptions depending on the society you are considering. Paternalism is the complete opposite of liberty. It is defined as the fatherly way of running a government, where society has no rights or responsibilities given to them. It is a form of policy that practices authoritative and controlling ways within a government. Unfortunately, the use of non-therapeutic drugs, alcohol, guns, prostitution and pornography are very much available in our day and age. Drugs are available amongst children and within middle school. Alcohol and guns are not as accessible to get to because there are laws that make it more difficult for minors to actually get their hands on them. Pornography is becoming less accessible for minors as well throughout the internet. These things are reoccurring every day and hour of the day and making it illegal will not stop it. In fact, illegalizing the availability of these things will increase the crime rate. Minimizing the requirements to use or have access to them would be a more productive solution. For example, under the Constitution of the United States of America, citizens of this country have the right to bear arm, but this does not mean minors should have the opportunity to buy and use a gun....
Words: 961 - Pages: 4
...The Utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage future wrongdoing. This theory appears to be more humane, punishment at best would be a necessary evil. Its main focus is punishment should be an option if it is going to produce an overall good. What if making an example of someone would lead to the most overall good, this theory would see a man punished for no reason if it would bring more good than harm. However, retributive theory is good in itself that those who have acted wrongly should suffer. When this happens people get what they deserve and justice is served. In this theory there is no reason to punish an innocent man, since doing so will not bring justice. There is no question. If Dr. Greenthumb has the capability to make the immune plant and therefore save the world, a pardon is in order. In this case looking at the future harm that might come to the world if he was executed as the retributive theory would require is not worth it. The Utilitarian theory needs to be applied to save the human race from starvation, the greater good needs to be applied. Society can always lie and say he is pardoned until he creates the immune fungus then he could be taken away for punishment. It is hard to decide which theory would lead to a better society seeing that rehabilitating the person might fail and punishing him in the same way as his offense might just fuel his hatred. However, retribution to me seems like justice. If a man chose to commit a crime why shouldn’t...
Words: 291 - Pages: 2
...Utility of Punishment | 6. | | Chapter 2: Retributive Justice And Legitimacy | 10. | | Chapter 3: Can Capital Punishment Be Justified | 13 | | Chapter 4: Finding A Middle Way | 15. | | Conclusion | 17. | | Bibliography | 18. | Introduction Punishment entails the intentional infliction of pain or some type of deprivation in an institutionalized form that individuals would generally prefer to avoid. This requires justification to be morally acceptable. Attempts to provide justification for infliction of punishment are made by various punishment theories. Punishment theories generally can be separated into a handful of philosophical camps—consequentialist theories, non-consequentialist theories, and mixed (or hybrid) theories that contain both consequentialist and non-consequentialist elements. What distinguishes these theories is their focus and goals: Consequentialist theories are forward-looking, concerned with the future consequences of punishment; non-consequentialist theories are backward-looking, interested solely in past acts and mental states; and mixed theories are both forward- and backward-looking, with each hybrid placing a different emphasis on culpable past conduct versus future consequences. The present paper will briefly examine the two dominant consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories of criminal punishment–utilitarianism and retributivism, respectively–as well as leading hybrid theories. In between using the utilitarian and Kantian...
Words: 6603 - Pages: 27
...The Relevance of Peacemaking Criminology David Esposito Troy University Abstract The realm of peacemaking criminology rests within the social conflict theories. Peacemaking criminology is a perspective that seeks ending crime through transformative and restorative justice methods to help people create peaceful solutions to crime. Peacemaking criminology can be implemented in society to focus on healing families currently touched by crime. The implementation of peacemaking criminology would be a profoundly different approach in effort to break a cycle that repeats itself in the way society currently operates. One can examine research already available and the effectiveness of current programs with similar goals and then determine their effectiveness and merit to invest time and money. The fundamental goal of peacemaking criminology is to use a non-violent methodology to solve crime. The Relevance of Peacemaking Criminology Peacemaking criminology is definitely not mainstream criminology and has only emerged in the last quarter century, as revealed in the publication of Harold Pepinsky and Richard Quinney’s edited reader titled Criminology as Peacemaking (Barnes, nd). The overall argument offered by the Pepinsky and Quinney writers is that the whole of the American criminal justice system is predicated on the continuance of violence and oppression and the failure to explain for how the larger social system impacts the problem of crime (Aday, 1992). One would contend that...
Words: 2213 - Pages: 9
...in America SOC 331: Social Justice and Ethics April 6, 2015 Criminalization of Homelessness in America Every country faces homelessness in one form or another. Homelessness in America has been an ongoing problem over many decade. Homelessness is not racist or biased as anyone can find themselves without the financial means to provide adequate shelter and food. While there are many definitions for homelessness the most common is “a person who "lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence” (www.pbs.org). Those who are susceptible to homelessness consist of but not limited to children, teenagers, adult men and woman, veterans, mentally unstable and elderly people. Homelessness is not just the problem that the homeless person faces but the problem that we all as citizens of the United States face ethically, morally with the proper forms of justice. Throughout this paper we are asked to evaluate different perspective and responses in regards to the American problem of homelessness. In doing so virtue ethics, distributive, commutative and retributive justices will be used in evaluating the responses. ‘Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that evaluates the morality of the person doing a given act, rather than the act itself. Virtue ethics thus emphasizes that the various virtues and whether a person reflects those virtues in his or her actions are crucial to moral evaluation” (Mosser, 2010). The text book Social and Criminal Justice in Moral Perspective breaks...
Words: 2246 - Pages: 9
...justified? This is one of the most debated topics in todays Society and it seems that everyone have an opinion on this topic. The real issues at the heart of this matter are how do we answer the question of moral justification? Kant and Stuart Mill, from a philosophical point of view, place their prospective on this issue. Both the theories of Mills and that of Kant permit the death penalty to be a morally permissible punishment. They do this, however, according to very different reasoning. Kant believes that juridical punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting an other good but must, in all cases, be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime. Kant was long considered to be an idealist of the retributivist theory of punishment. While he does claim that the only proper justification of punishment is guilt for a crime, he does not limit the usefulness of punishment to retributivist matters. Punishment can have, as its justification, only the guilt of the criminal. Criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise an injustice has occurred. Retributivist theory holds not only that criminal guilt is required for punishment, but that the appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself. Kant believes that one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another, nor be mixed up with the subjects of real right. Against such...
Words: 850 - Pages: 4
...Rationales of Incarceration as Punishment and Alternative Methods The Government has several theories to support the use of incarceration as punishment. Which can be divided into two main categories: utilitarian and retributive. The utilitarian theory seeks to discourage “deter” future crimes by punishing the offender. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished. If one looks future into the reasons we punish criminals, one can find a number of justifications for using punishment. "Most criminal justice scholars agree [though] that there are four primary justifications for criminal punishment; retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.” (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 206) The first rationale is deterrence which is let’s use this person as an example so they and others will not commit a crime. I feel the main reason we use incarceration is to punish the offender and to maintain order in society. Some believe that when you punish an offender it will deter them from a lifetime of future crime as well as others in society. You have to ask yourself does incarceration deter crime. The short answer is both yes and no. Some will learn from their mistakes and not do it again and others will not care. Some believe that deterrence is useful in deterring convicted offenders from committing other crimes and will deter others in society from committing crimes. If a person knows that they will be punished if caught committing...
Words: 826 - Pages: 4
...Running Head: CORRECTIONAL THEORIES 1 Competing Theories of Corrections in The Criminal Justice System Nicole Yaniero AIU Online Running Head: CORRECTIONAL THEORIES 2 Abstract In today’s system, there are several competing theories for what approach should be taken to improve the correctional system. Certain strategies, such as punishment and rehabilitation, have different goals. These goals, in most cases, are different from each other. People all over prefer one strategy to the other, and compelling evidence can be brought into perspective for each. Aside form the usual, non traditional aspects and approaches to fixing the corrections system are also talked about today. This paper will discuss all elements of corrections theories, its goals, its effectiveness, and the rating of completion of academic and vocational programs offered to inmates in prison. Running Head: CORRECTIONAL THEORIES 3 Competing Theories Of Corrections In The Criminal Justice System In today’s day and age, many views and criticism take place of the Criminal Justice system. In specific, the correctional aspect of the system receives much of this criticism. There are two strategies particularly that come into play most often when speaking of corrections. These two strategies are punishment, and rehabilitation. Each of these strategies have its own set of goals...
Words: 3324 - Pages: 14
...Probation System There are three theories or models of criminal justice. The first one is the retributive theory while the second is the rehabilitate theory and the last is the restorative theory. The first basically concerns itself with the punishment of people by putting them in boot camps, in order to deter their ways. Such instills discipline and fear, which in turn reduces crime. The second one believes that working with these people change their ways to reduce crime, the U.S. Penal System: Restorative and Retributive Justice. The third aims to reintroduce and reincorporate the person back into the community after retribution or rehabilitation. To begin, the first one is optimistic and believes that people are innately good such that prison cells are built so that the prisoner inside the cell can be silent. As he is silent, he can meditate on his wrong-doings. This tradition believes that then spiritual transformation may take place thus rehabilitating such person. On the other hand, the second one is pessimistic, which is why facilities were built to bring about obedience. What is done is to “instill habits of work in people, help build their skills then they will be rehabilitated. The third one, which believes that true rehabilitation, takes place when such person is allowed back into the community and is a combination of both retributive and rehabilitative theories, such as deter future and past criminals from doing a crime because the threat of incarceration...
Words: 1788 - Pages: 8
...wisdom, love and time I pay gratitude to my entire batch mates of Dazzlers. Conveying my sincere thanks to all the members of Sevana social group I wind up. general introduction Human is a rational and social being. Society is an unavoidable factor for human being. There are a lot of things to keep as a social being to human. To maintain a good relationship with others, there are certain written and unwritten rules. The person who keeps this rules called ‘just man’. There are different faces to the concept ‘justice’. A brief study about the concept ‘justice’ is an important today. Many philosophers have tried to explain the concept ‘justice’ and its features. We can find a lot of features in personal justice. The meaning of justice may change according to the situations. But there should be a common factor; this common factor is the concept of ‘ethics’. In general justice and ethics are co-related. Today the study of justice includes anthropology, sociology,...
Words: 9389 - Pages: 38
...After reviewing the four theories of justice, as well as applying the theories to the Vanessa Pham case, I believe the best one is the parallel justice model. The parallel theory works best for this particular crime because it allows the victims to receive counsel and other assistance they may need but not found under the other justice models (Newmark, 2017b). The retributive justice model focuses too much on punishing Blanco-Garcia, and is not concerned with the needs of Pham’s friends and family, who are now secondary-victims Newmark, 2017b). Consequently, this may result in them being further victimized during the process (Newmark, 2017d). The utilitarian model is also ‘offender-focused,’ and is not entirely concerned with the help Pham’s family and friends might need because of her murder. Moreover, the utilitarian model also might not deter Blanco-Garcia, or another individual, from...
Words: 499 - Pages: 2
...has successfully been used to deter people from committing capital crimes. As well, I will discuss various philosophies regarding the morals of execution and punishment in general. My goal in writing this paper is not to force abolitionist thinkers to change their position with regards to capital punishment, but rather to show abolitionist thinkers that there is another way to look at capital punishment. Two of the main principles that are used to support the retentionist philosophy are deterrence and retributivism. Deterrence is the theory that the death penalty is morally just because it will deter would-be murderers from committing capital crimes, which carry a sentence of execution. Retributivism is the idea that criminals should be punished because they deserve to be punished, a robber must return what he stole while a murderer deserves to be put to death for having killed someone. The concept of deterrence is based on a utilitarian theory in that it creates an overall benefit for the entire society, namely living with less fear of having a potential murderer in their midst. There are two types of deterrence; specific...
Words: 2523 - Pages: 11
