This paper will focus on retributive justice and restorative justice. Let’s begin with the definition of each. Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime. On the other hand, restorative justice is the opposite. It is a theory of justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders. So which of these should be morally right? Retributive justice means an eye for an eye. Meaning your punishment will equal to the harm you’ve done.
If one goes out and kill, they may receive life in prison. Depending on the situation they could also receive the death penalty. The justice feels that one should pay of its actions which I am in agreement. If a person decides to go on a killing spree than yes they should be placed in prison and in some cases given the death penalty. Justice will not be served if they just let that person go with a few years in prison and a little of community service. If that was the case, they would do their time and go right back to harming others of the community.
Restorative justice actually promotes this. They believe the offender is just important as helping the victim. A circle of support and accountability is a national sex offender rehabilitation program. It gives help to sex offenders that will hopefully restore their lives. This group consists of four to six volunteers from the community. They sit around and talk about the crimes they have committed. They feel these groups will stop them from wanting to offend again. They began to get comfortable talk to the people around them and gaining their peers trust.
Me personally, I don’t see how such a thing could help. These sex offenders have sexually harmed other people including young children and adults. Should it be fair that they are giving a smaller sentence if they agree to do community service and join a support group? Ask yourself, why are they being treated as if they are the victims. Let’s look at the difference between two situations. On one side you have a sex offender who has raped a little girl and on the other side is a drug dealer who was caught distributing drugs to an adult.
Why is it that the drug dealer can get up to life in prison for possession of drugs but the sex offender can pretty much walk free? Is that fair for the community? Maybe instead of theme supporting these sex offenders, they should open a support group that could help these drug dealers get a job and start there life over. They may have begun selling drugs because it was the only way they felt they could provide for their family. But did they take the time to ask, no because they are so focused on these molester.
I don’t understand why they can spend money to put drug dealers behind bars when they aren’t the real criminals. Our prisons are so full of people who have committed a small crime that there’s not enough room for our real criminals. You got people in jail for stealing out a store, getting into a fight, and even for child support, but here it is the sex offenders get to go on and enjoy their lives. I do not agree with restorative justice in this case. There are five common approaches to punishments. The first one is deterrence.
It’s basically saying that if people know that they will be punished for such a crime, then they will think twice about committing it. If no one ever got punished for robbing a bank, than everyone would began to do it because they wouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. The second one is rehabilitation. It’s the same as support groups. They feel that the criminal will learn to never turn to crime again. The third is incapacitation which says if punishment keeps the criminal off the streets, than the public is safer.
If you imprison a serial killer, than it would stop others from being harmed by that same killer. Fourthly we have retribution which believes that one who commits a crime should receive a punishment in proportion to their crime. If someone steal from the store, there not going to give them life in prison because it’s not proportionate to their crime. But if they bombed a whole community killing many people then they will most likely receive the death penalty of life in prison. The fifth approach to punishment is vengeance.
It is somewhat like retribution except it’s based on emotions, is private, and wants a bigger punishment for the crime. They usually will take their anger out on the individual instead of the guilty person So, is anger ever appropriate? I don’t think it is. If ever case was based on emotions, a lot more people would be facing jail time for all the wrong reasons. More innocent people would be considered guilty. They wouldn’t look at the proof but more of the way the situation made them feel. So no, anger should never be appropriate.