Severity of Sanctions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Severity of Sanctions - Essay Example The implications of these two philosophies are quite different. Retribution focuses on the criminal's behaviour and stresses the need to punish him in proportion to the extent of damages caused or loss suffered. Conversely, the utilitarian stance focuses, not on the criminal, but on society as a whole with an aim at reducing crime and thereby ensuring the safety of society. Whilst both of these models are described in their pure theoretical form, in reality most cultures adopt a blended version of both. However, before we begin to fully examine the effectiveness of deterrence, an understanding of it is necessary. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. Specific deterrence is aimed at eliminating the future criminal activity of the person being incarcerated or punished in order to avoid future punishment for repeating a similar crime whilst general deterrence's goal is reducing crime unilaterally by stopping others from committing like crimes for fear of receiving like punishment (Palmer 2005, p. 25). While it is impossible to argue that capital punishment is not a totally effective means of ensuring specific deterrence, its effectiveness as a deterrent to others is not so definitive. This leads us to the debate of the severity of sentencing and its effects on deterring criminal behaviour. Feinberg views punishment i... Instead of acting as a deterrent to preventing future criminal activity sentencing is merely a punishment and has nothing to do with deterring crime; rather its effectiveness as a specific deterrent only lasts as long as the prison sentence itself. In his explanation of the phenomenon of punishment Feinberg states: Punishment is a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those 'in whose name' the punishment is inflicted. Punishment, in short, has a symbolic significance largely missing from other kinds of penalties (1994, p. 74). He elaborates in greater detail by stating that greater than disapproval, punishment is, in effect, society's method of 'getting back' at criminals and further showing its "vindictive resentment" (1994, p. 76). From his position it is clear that criminal sentencing is not deterrent in intent; rather it is retributive in nature. Von Hirsh and Ashworth take a similar stance but further elaborate on what they view to be the causal effects of this 'vindictive resentment'. In their theory politicians use the public's fear of crime and criminals to create a heightened state of panic amongst the public. With this increased sense of fear and outrage the brunt of the retributive wrath falls upon those least able to defend themselves. Clearly seeking neither retribution nor deterrence, the political overtones and the media frenzy caused results in a public outcry for justice. As public sentiment grows more fearful and resentful, the severity of punishment rises proportionally. The sentence no longer deals with the specific nature or severity crime itself, but rather focuses