• Punishment should fit the ..
  • The Punishment Should Fit the ..
  • The Punishment Should Fit The Crime (Essay Sample)

Dante Alighieri, in his epic poem The Inferno from the Divine Comedy, stipulated that punishment should fit the crime

The Punishment Should Fit the Crime ..

Punishment to fit the crime for young offenders | …

Punishment to fit the crime for young offenders
Photo provided by Flickr
The central meaning and purpose of punishment, on such accounts, is tocommunicate to offenders the censure or condemnation that they deservefor their crimes. Once we recognise, as we should, that punishment canserve this communicative purpose, we can see how such accounts beginto answer the two questions that retributivists face. First, there isan obviously intelligible justificatory relationship betweenwrongdoing and censure — as a response which is intended toimpose a burden (the burden of condemnation by one’s fellows) onan offender for his offence: whatever puzzles there might be aboutother attempts to explain the idea of penal desert, the idea thatwrongdoers deserve to suffer censure is surely unpuzzling. Second, itis appropriate for the state to ensure that such censure is formallyadministered through the criminal justice system: if crimes are publicwrongs, breaches of the political community’s authoritativecode, then they merit public censure by the community. Furthermore,although internal to censure is the intention, or hope, that theperson censured will accept the censure as justified and will thus bemotivated to avoid crime in future, this kind of account can avoid thecharge (as brought against consequentialist theories) that it seeks tocoerce or manipulate offenders into obeying the law. For censureaddresses, and respects, the person censured as a rational andresponsible agent: it constitutes an appropriate, deserved response tothe wrong that she did, and seeks to bring her to modify her futureconduct only by reminding her of the good moral reasons that she hasfor refraining from crime; it is an appropriate way for citizens totreat and respond to each other. (For different kinds of communicativeaccount, see especially von Hirsch 1993, ch.2; Duff 2001, chs. 1.4.4,3.2; Bennett 2008; Markel 2011, 2012. For critical discussion, seeDavis 1991; Boonin 2008: 171–80; Hanna 2008; Matravers 2011).

15/10/2007 · Should the punishment fit the crime or ..

Punishment should fit the crime - Daily Titan
Photo provided by Flickr
As a result, the ground was cut out from under the dominant penalpolicy of mid-century, the indeterminate sentence in the service of therehabilitative ideal for offenders behind bars. Probation as theessential nonincarcerative alternative sanction received an expandedrole, but release on parole came to a virtual end. In its place (but asit turned out, only in theory) was uniform determinate sentencing,which would avoid the follies of unachievable rehabilitative goals andensure both incapacitation and even-handed justice for all offenders.(This was, of course, before the political process distorted theseaims. Not all admirers of justice in punishment supported determinatesentencing.) The culmination of this trend appears in the SentencingReform Act of 1984, which spawned the United States SentencingCommission and its Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The doctrine has notbeen without its critics, both in theory and in practice (Zimring1977). But to date, no alternative approach shows anysigns of supplementing the just deserts sentencing philosophy—nomatter how preposterous in practice the claim that a given punitivesentence is justly deserved may be in most cases.



In cases of violence and homicide, the punishment should fit the crime.
Photo provided by Flickr
The argument for imposing deserved punishments so defined on guiltyoffenders is thus in part an argument from consistency. It isinconsistent to specify liability and eligibility conditions forpunishment and then not apply the sanction so authorized when the factsin a given case show that it is warranted. It is unfair to thelaw-abiding for law-breakers to incur no socially approved cost fortheir misconduct; it is unfair because it would create a class ofharmful free riders in the society. The socially approved costs ofcrime imposed on offenders consist mainly in the deprivationsauthorized by the punitive sanction. Fairness to the law-abiding alsosuggests that society ought to expend a reasonable fraction of itsresources in combating crime and preventing victimization.

Photo provided by Flickr
Thus, for instance, some argue that those who voluntarily break thelaw thereby forfeit at least some of the rights that citizens cannormally claim: their wrongdoing therefore legitimises kinds oftreatment (reformative or incapacitative treatment, for instance, ordeterrent punishment) that would normally be wrong as violatingcitizens’ rights (see Goldman 1982; C Morris 1991; Wellman 2012;for criticisms, see Lippke 2001a; Boonin 2008: 103–19). We mustask, however, whether we should be so quick to exclude fellow citizensfrom the rights and status of citizenship, or whether we should notlook for an account of punishment (if it is to be justified at all) onwhich punishment can still be claimed to treat those punished as fullcitizens. (The common practice of denying imprisoned offenders theright to vote while they are in prison, and perhaps even after theyleave prison, is symbolically significant in this context: those whowould argue that punishment should be consistent with recognisedcitizenship should also oppose such practices; see Lippke 2001b; 2005.)

Do you think the punishment should fit the crime? | …

Additionally, FAMM’s Fit the Crime project advocates sentencing guidelines that provide for punishment other than prison for first-time, nonviolent offenders whose crime is not otherwise serious. For these offenders and many others, a federal conviction carries collateral consequences—loss of state-issued licenses, ineligibility to work in various industries, damage to reputation, family and social networks—that serve no public safety purposes and are themselves a form of punishment.

proportionality punishment should "fit" the ..

One strategy for dealing with them is to posit a two-stepjustification of punishment. The first step, which typically appealsto nonconsequentialist values, shows how the commission of a crimerenders the offender eligible for, or liable to, the kinds of coercivetreatment that punishment involves: such treatment, which is normallyinconsistent with the respect due to us as rational agents or ascitizens, and inconsistent with the Kantian means principle, isrendered permissible by the commission of the offence. The second stepis then to offer positive consequentialist reasons for imposingpunishment on those who are eligible for it or liable to it: we shouldpunish if and because this can be expected to produce sufficientconsequential benefits to outweigh its undoubted costs. (Furthernonconsequentialist constraints might also be placed on the severityand modes of punishment that can be permitted: constraints eitherflowing from an account of just what offenders render themselvesliable to, or from other values external to the system of punishment.)

of law is that the punishment should fit the ..

Since the safety valve's adoption, 80,000 federal offenders have avoided a mandatory minimum sentence and received instead punishments that fit their crimes. The nation's crime rate has dropped an amazing 44 percent. In short, the safety valve improved public safety while saving taxpayers billions.