Punishment of Crimes in the Us Criminal Justice System free essay sample

Punishment of Crimes in the US Criminal Justice System One of the greatest challenges facing the criminal justice system is the need to balance the rights of accused criminals against society’s interest in imposing punishments on those convicted of crimes. The U. S. criminal justice system deals with punishment of those in violation of the law in several ways; retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and even the possibility of rehabilitation are all different options that are utilized by the U. S. today with those convicted of crimes. After reading selections from Emile Durkheim’s â€Å"Rules of Sociological Method†, I realize that although so much is done to prevent it and ultimately deter ordinary people and criminals alike from committing a crime, a society is unable to function without it. Durkheim makes a claim that although crime is â€Å"regrettable,† it is an â€Å"integrative element in any healthy society† (Durkheim: 98). It has been evident in almost every society around the globe that crime is an essential way in which we build social solidarity. The criminal justice system creates and maintains a powerful dynamic of solidarity through social exclusion of criminals and we can compare the different ways in which crimes are punished and their effect on that dynamic of social solidarity. Changes in U. S. politics have caused shifts in the theoretical purposes of sentencing and punishment. During the heyday of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s, the judicial and executive branches (for example, parole boards) wielded power in sentencing. Legislators designed sentencing laws with rehabilitation in mind. More recently, during the politically conservative 1980s and 1990s, legislators seized power over sentencing, and a combination of theories—deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation—have influenced sentencing laws (Reynolds). Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are all arguments that look to the consequences of punishment; they are all forward-looking theories of punishment. Retribution is just the opposite. The issue of retribution or â€Å"an eye for an eye,† is thought of as a key rationale for punishment. In our world today, there isn’t a society where it is not the rule that the punishment should fit the crime (Durkheim: 103). Retribution is a backward-looking theory of punishment, meaning it looks to the past to determine what to do in the present. Ideally, the harshness of punishments should be proportionate to the seriousness of crimes. In reality, it is difficult to match punishments and crimes, since there is no way to objectively gauge the moral evil of particular crimes and/or the painfulness endured by specific punishments. Although I don’t personally believe retribution is always the right way to go about the punishment of crimes, it creates an atmosphere of criminals getting what they deserve and helps to build solidarity in a society through that overall feeling of â€Å"let the punishment fit the crime†. Solidarity grows when we act against certain people and punish them for the extent of what they have really done and the crime committed. Retribution is viewed as a vastly accepted method of punishment, but probably the most prevalent method is in the form of incapacitation. Incapacitation has been largely accepted into the criminal justice system, and entails the removal from society. A popular reason for punishment is that it gets criminals off the streets and protects the public. The idea is to remove an offender from society, making it physically impossible (or at least very difficult) for him or her to commit further crimes against the public while serving a sentence. Incapacitation works as long as the offenders remain locked up. There is no question that incapacitation reduces crime rates by some unknown degree. The problem is that it is very expensive. Incapacitation carries high costs not only in terms of building and operating prisons, but also in terms of disrupting families when family members are locked up (Henry). Incapacitation as a punishment of crimes is able to build-up social solidarity in two instances, between those who are the victims of crimes, but also between those persons who actually committed the offence and those closest to them. When a multitude of people are singled out and separated, it builds the bond not only within those who remain, but for those individuals who have been isolated and other persons who either feel pity or unhappy about their isolation as well. One of the few downfalls of incapacitation as well as deterrence and all other methods of punishment to crimes, is that even if all crimes were to be abolished, new crimes would arise in some form or another (Durkheim: 98). However, where incapacitation is provided through actions after-the-fact, deterrence is rooted solely in fear of consequences. Can fear truly discourage crime? Deterrence assumes that people will weigh the costs and benefits of their actions and will not commit crimes due to the severity of their punishment and that of incarceration. There are two  different types of deterrence, general and specific. General deterrence uses the person sentenced for a crime as an example to induce the public to refrain from criminal conduct, whereas specific deterrence punishes an offender to dissuade that offender from committing future crimes. The limitations of deterrence are that some crimes can’t be deterred because the offenders don’t rationally weigh the bene fits versus the cost (which includes punishment) before breaking the law. Such limitations arise with criminal acts that involve crimes of passion and crimes committed while under the influence of drugs among others. Another point to be made is that deterrence doesn’t necessarily only apply to punishments, deterrence can also come from preventative measures taken beforehand. The general fear of consequence and punishment of the collective is the main component of social solidarity when pertained to deterrence. The almost exact opposite of deterrence and trying to prevent the criminal acts from happening in the first place, is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation as a form of punishment to crimes is a â€Å"let the punishment fit the criminal† mentality. The rehabilitative ethic is in place so criminals can learn for the betterment of themselves. Rehabilitation calls for changing the individual lawbreaker through correctional interventions, such as drug-treatment programs. We have seen that certain criminals, such as perpetrators of nonviolent crimes and first-time offenders, are more likely to be successfully rehabilitated than repeat offenders and violent criminals (Reynolds). The full effectiveness of rehabilitation has never truly been tested however with funding being, for the most part, inadequate. This method of punishment is another clear example of building social solidarity through the exclusion of criminals being entered into rehabilitation programs. As the smaller number of individuals is essentially outcast, the larger group comes together through this social exclusion of criminals. When looking at the way that our criminal justice system punishes crimes, there are many forms and shapes these punishments take on, but they all ultimately lead to the same end which is an increase in social solidarity. Through reading selections from Emile Durkheim’s â€Å"Rules of Sociological Method† and drawing comparisons to the different methods and reasons behind why we punish crimes I was able to gain perspective on how these punishments help to build social solidarity. Through the social exclusion of criminals, the U. S. criminal justice system is able to maintain the powerful dynamic of solidarity. Whether it be out of a need for retribution, deterrence, incapacitation or even a willingness to help and rehabilitate a criminal, crime is a key component to the solidarity of society as a whole and helps to bring together the larger group through the punishment of criminals. Bibliography