Punishments are meted out for three grounds – disincentive. retributivism. and incapacitation. The first. disincentive seeks to forestall hereafter incorrect making. Retributivism is linked to impressions of justness where offense must be met with an appropriate penalty. The last. incapacitation. seeks to protect society at big from felons. This essay will analyze whether penalty is ever the right solution to halt offense. in visible radiation of the grounds for serving out penalty to felons. From the position of justness. penalty is the right solution to halt offense. as justness must be upheld in society. However. from a more matter-of-fact point of position. penalty may non ever be the right manner to halt offense as it is frequently uneffective. Alternatively of merely meting out penalty. the right solutions should concentrate on educating and reforming the wrongdoers every bit good as educating the general populace for the interest of a better society in the hereafter.


From a practical position. penalty is non ever the right manner to halt offense as its disincentive consequence is limited. For the wrongdoers. disincentive presents a menace of negative effects to forestall wrongdoers from prosecuting in condemnable activity in the hereafter ; for the populace. disincentive direct a message to the general population to demo that if one engages in condemnable activity. there will be terrible effects. The premise is that human existences are rational to weigh the benefits and loses of perpetrating a offense. It might look that the chance of having a decease sentence would discourage liquidators from perpetrating such offenses. However. many surveies on disincentive and the decease punishment do non back up this thought. The disincentive theory is non ever applicable to all the instances. particularly for violent. This is because most of the clip when the wrongdoers commit violent offenses. their condemnable purpose overshadows their ability to believe rationally of the effects of their unlawful act. For case. terrorists are willing to give their lives to perpetrate the offense. so even the most terrible penalty decease punishment does non function as a disincentive for them. Besides. a recent survey published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that 88 % of the country’s top criminologists surveyed do non believe the decease punishment acts as a hindrance to homicide.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

These statistics all shows that the disincentive consequence of the penalty can non ever wipe out people’s purpose of perpetrating offense. Equally long as wrongdoers are willing to take the effects. the disincentive consequence does non work on them. In contrast. the option of civic instruction. can assist wipe out people’s purpose of perpetrating the offense. Unlike the disincentive consequence. it has an enlightening consequence. With engrafting the right positive values. the possible wrongdoers would larn how to happen alternate methods to let go of their choler to person or to deflect themselves from perpetrating the offense. In this manner. their negative purpose can be erased and consequence in halting the offense. Therefore. in my sentiment. the civic instruction is more effectual than penalty and it should be right solutions to halt the offense.


While in many instances. penalty metes out the appropriate justnesss. this is non true in all the instances. Sometimes. penalty may be blind to the causes of the offense and the fortunes of the felon. The consequence is that penalty is non ever the right method to halt the offense. Retributivism is a signifier of justness. whereby when an wrongdoer breaks a jurisprudence. they are required to give up something in return. It is based on the rule of lex talionis: “An oculus for an oculus. a life for a life” . which states that whatever offense carried out will be punished proportionately. Another intent of retributivism is to convey the closing for the victims for a short term. nevertheless. this lone brings short term benefits for victims. In the long tally. the retributivism does non function to work out the existent jobs of the wrongdoers. There are many instances that felons may be wrongfully accused and sentenced to decease. Cases like Li Yan. a Chinese adult female who killed her opprobrious hubby after 4 months of barbarous domestic force was sentenced to decease. However. her action can be regarded as self-defence.

Hence. Amnesty International East Asia has tried to name for a reversal of the sentence. The existent job behind this offense is the deficiency of protection of adult females from the domestic force in China. However. the judgement merely focused on how Fifty-one Yan should give her life for a life. The penalty really fails to turn to the cardinal causes of offenses and fails to make true justness. given that the felon has sympathetic fortunes. In many instances. wrongdoers perpetrating offenses may due to some loath troubles or they need survive in a rough conditions. Therefore. alternatively of merely meting out the penalty blindly. it is more of import to guarantee that true justness is done. such that felons are non wrongfully convicted. This can be done by work outing the societal issues behind the offense and it is a more proper solution to halt the offense.


Imprisoning unsafe people to acquire them off the street and take them from society helps forestall future injury by these felons. Imprisonment punishes people by taking their right to personal autonomy. However. the incapacitation consequence does non function to educate and reform the wrongdoers. Once the wrongdoers are released from prison. they may easy perpetrate the offense once more. Jon Venables. 31. was released from gaol merely over 3 old ages ago. but was shortly was sent back to prison for administering kid erotica. When he was 10 old ages old. he served 8 old ages for killing two-year-old child called James Bulger. James’s parents were ferocious with the determination to let go of such a danger individual as they believe it is merely a affair of clip before he commits another offense against a kid. There are many wrongdoers like Jon Venables who ever repeat the same offenses. This shows that imprisoning the wrongdoer is non able to reform him into a good individual. Solutions should accomplish the intent of educating and reforming the wrongdoer on top of enforcing a punishment for their incorrect behaviors so as to halt him recommitting the offense. The incapacitation consequence of the penalty clearly fails to function this intent.

Many wrongdoers start acquiring into their condemnable wonts since immature. The deficiency of rectification from their parents or school indulges their wrongfulness and consequences in the troubles of reforming them after they are grown up. Therefore. penalty is non ever the right solutions to halt offense as it does non alter or reform offenders’ wonts and constructs. Compare to civic instruction. it is clearly far more efficient for halting the offense as it help organize the good wonts and moral constructs in people. Moral instruction enlightens the general public’s sense of justness. Implanting positive values in young person is the best manner to forestall offenses as Foster the good characters and wonts need to get down cultivating from childhood. The penalty is indispensable for society to map. We sleep good at dark because felons are being locked up and punished. and victims feel that they have achieved damages for the incorrect suffered.

A study in 2005 shows that 95 % of Singaporeans feel that decease punishment should remain as it increases the sense of security. Hence. while it is true that sometimes felons are wrongfully convicted. and that they may non be deterred or reformed. we do necessitate a system of penalties in topographic point due to our impression of justness. We can non wholly follow an educational or rehabilitative attack. In decision. while penalties can be the right manner to halt offenses ( at least in footings of justness and how penalties are a contemplation of the moral codification of society ) . the effectivity of penalties can be limited. hence possibly it should be implemented in concurrence with other attacks.

Written by

I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out