Individual punishment research

University of Phoenix

Sociology Research Assignment

Sociology 120

Professor Lee Daffin

Mechelle Davidson

12/11/2011

Individual Punishment Research

December 11, 2011

Changes in the administration of criminal justice reveal significant developments in legal

inventions of great importance and criminology of human behaviors in the last fifty years. Development

of these revolutionary public conceptions on the nature of crime and the criminal, as well as public

attitudes toward the proper treatment of the convicted offender is essential in American society’s

evolution. When looking through the complex history of criminal justice development, institutional

behaviors, public attitudes, and perhaps precise idealisms to discover knowledge of human behavior to

control that of human behavior stands objective of future penal process ideas. According to Sir Francis

Palgrave, “Punishment is not to be thundered in vengeance for the satisfaction of the state, but imposed

for the good of the offender, to afford the means of amendment and to lead to transgressor to

repentance, and to mercy,” (Allen, 1959, p. 226).

Crime and Policy

Laws and policies over time have adapted to local conditions and influences of society

emphasizing on criminal behavior and the cost. Through a growing public perception on criminality and

the effectiveness of corrections, rates of recidivism recognizes the importance of inmate achievements

in education, training, conduct, and treatment needs specific to the individual offenders is a major factor

in whether they eventual return to criminality.

With growing crime, rates and detention of lawbreakers within the penitentiary systems with

the ideology conceived as isolated place criminal offenders incarcerated for punishment, to reflect on

their misdeed while engaging in productive labor, as consequences to enlist reformatory behavior and

rehabilitation. These disillusioned views saw the deterrence and reform achievement necessary in

allowing the criminal to function as a productive members of society‘s citizens (Esperian, 2010).

1Societal protection recognize that non-state institutions may provide insurance based societies are specific on the identification of state providers of social assistances. Giving important informal transfers in the livelihoods of the poor and impoverished suggestive of social assistance conceptualizations (Andy Norton, 2002, p. 543).


December 11, 2011

Americans prevailing wisdom of prisoners’ and the different corrections policies currently in

position depicts serious debates that education over horrible experiences promises a delinquent

member taking responsibilities for committing crimes, and suggests contributing to reducing re-

incarceration; a good investment for state taxpayers.

Types of Punishment

Punishment throughout the ages was intended to reflects the ideas and values of societies and

governments which mandated them, early attitudes toward crime and punishment characterized by

retribution, preventive detention (deterrence), rehabilitation, and societal protection. Societal

intervention and influences sponsors numerous opinions regarding prisoner programs, and promoting

non-traditional offender diversions with alternatives to outlaws spending time behind bars concurrence

to the severity of the crime committed.

Preventive Detention

Preventive detention invoke envisages of arrests, convictions, and punishment of persons, not

because of grievous harms they have actually committed, or have already imposed on others but

because of suspicions they are disposed to commit acts that likely will cause grave harm futuristically.

This perverse view of traditional legal policies potential of legitimizing the incarceration of potential

criminal acts before they have commenced, on belief of possible harms that might occur if

incapacitation were not to occur. Tendency in favor of detention for future dangers provides the theory

that the only acceptable rationale is to fully legitimate incarceration as crime prevention. As a

continued core part of legal practice, at the deepest level governmental principle may intervene in order

to prevent future harms.



December 11, 2011

What preventive detention means simply is the understanding that (1) being simultaneously a

policy about what constitutes a crime and (2) what justifies governmental intervention. This

characterizing entails that an activity, (1), can properly considered a crime (as statute defines) if

plausible to believe that doing (1) substantially increases the risk in grievous harm to innocent citizens is

to ensue eventually from (1). Immediate and direct harm of such crime is of course a criminal act.

Theorists are inclined to criminalize activities even if production of no harm should ensue from these

activities. Retributionists hold the view that punishments should fit the crime, and the function of

punishments is retribution of a debt to society. Preventive detentionists, hold the contrary belief that

the principal function of punishment or incarceration is to protect society from dangerous persons, with

a longer incapacitation for those representing a greater danger.

Preventive detention does not provide indefinite detention or denial of right to informed

charges upon arrest, or the potential for incarceration of any significance without due process.

Preventive detention does however entail the assessment of danger posed to society both by defining

the characters of a criminal act and determination of appropriate punishment. These nightmarish

schemes we can imagine only holds that theories of crime and punishment are necessary for

construction of acceptable criminal justice systems.

The current trial and incarceration policies involve elements of preventive detention understood

broadly as often deprivation of persons liberty occur for fear that left to their own devices, serious harm

might occur to others. Once realization of the vast numbers of different types of acts criminalized

through particular guides, those acts produced no harm to anyone, nonetheless criminalized because

they pose a serious future danger to others and those committing such acts once is prone to repeat if

not incarcerated.



December 11, 2011

Retribution

Retribution ideology governs American sentencing policies resulting in negative relationships

between the police, courts, and American community residents. As factors that contribute to current

punishment, systems are predominantly following rationale for the imposition of criminal sanctions, as

consequences that depersonalize the offender, by absorbing individualization in the classification of

committed crimes. A criminal punishment view of social principles provides a values-based perspective

encompassing the distinctive understanding of persons, the relationships to ideas of power, and the

power of relationships.

Current practices represent innovative views and approaches to doing justice while relating

decisions to present change that extend beyond all constitutional limitations. Restorative principals are

the means to maintain control and order in society, the idea of justice in criminal matters is essential in

law and punishments. Retributive justice measured by the imposition of sanctions characterized by the

severity and proportional to the type of offense. Resulting offenders become targets of formal criminal

sanctions because of his or her behaviors, consequences of social stigmas attached to having a criminal

record reflects social cassation reflective of early historical roots following the Napoleonic code of civil

law.

The act of violation of law and the emphasizing criminal behaviors signify those individual

victims, communities, offenders, and the families that incurred harm by their criminal act. Restorative

justice imagine implication extensive in all who are a party to the criminal act and acknowledgement of

understanding the effects of his or her criminal behavior on others while taking responsibility of the



December 11, 2011

physical and emotional needs of said victims. A community assumes responsibilities in establishing

supportive services with a safe environment for offenders as well as all its other members.

Rehabilitation through Education

The idea of educational corrections offers the single most effective tool in reducing incarceration

rates and re-incarceration of individuals directly working with programs. Transitioning felons through

state created positive outreach programs provide realistic understanding of numerous, and serious

barriers facing inmates’ re-entry in society. General attitudes toward prisoners’ education hit both sides

of the spectrum, from extreme negativity to acceptance, with no real enthusiasm of rehabilitation

through incarceration. Critical elements missing in prison education systems are those of motivation

strategies from class instructors. Secondary and college level programs are highly successful, while

vocational and mechanical programs generally, generating more enthusiasm (Esperian, 2010).

With development of these programs, inmates gain basic skills, like reading and mathematics,

which often result in providing greater opportunities for significant deterrents to re-incarceration

(Ogden, 1958). Education humanizes individuals, which clearly ameliorative effects on reversion rates

when one considers the education will only sharpen rationality and critical thinking designs of those

incarcerated with these opportunities.

Societal Protection

Societal protection recognizes a number of framework documents that guarantee a minimum

livelihood (not necessarily income) in circumstances, which potentially jeopardizes an individual’s

survival. Themes of societal protection rights and sustainability promote circumstances in the provision

of social protection pursuant to ensure the fulfillment of the right to minimum livelihood with dignity of



December 11, 2011

all citizens (Andy Norton, 2002). Societal protection constitutes the rendering of an offender incapable

of further offenses through the temporary imprisonment and permanently using capital punishment or

execution (Macionis, 2006, p. 183).

Societal protection intended for the protection of society from the harm and threat of

perpetrators with crime. Definitions of social protection vary between broad and narrow perspectives;

defining the focus of problems nature, while addressing policy responses and instrumental concepts

opposed to pragmatic approaches. With dual characters, referring to both nature of deprivation and

form of policy responses, most however address all three purposes for public actions and response

levels:

Vulnerability and Risk Assessments

Levels of absolute deprivation deemed unacceptable

Form of response, which is both social and public in character

Social protection refers to the public actions taken in response to levels of vulnerability, risk and

deprivation which are deemed socially unacceptable within a given polity or society (Andy Norton,

2002, p. 543).1

Under this belief system protection deals with both (i) the absolute deprivation and

vulnerabilities of the poorest and (ii) the need of the non-poor for security in the face of shocks and the

difficulties of different stages of the life cycle(example: pregnancy, death, and marriage), (Andy Norton,

2002). Society of all persons for self and others transcends the idealism of “control for the sake of

control,” Consistent with the moral fiber of education theory, a need to impose punishment for offender



December 11, 2011

instead of to the offender, expressed simply as a deprivation of personal freedoms. Under penal law,

with the provision that “time” become the opportunity for self reform, remorse, training, and

responsibility of relationship control and mutual responsibilities in emphatically exploration of

dimensions within punishments based on policies and practices (Allen, 1959).

Result

Primary significance for measures employed to treat the convicted offender should serve

therapeutic function, designed to effect change in behaviors of the convicted person in the interest of

his or her own happiness, health, and satisfaction with the interest of social defense.

Vivian Nixon writes, “In a country where second chances and opportunity are professed values,

democratic access to high-quality higher education must include access for people in prison. We cannot

bar the most vulnerable people from the very thing that has the greatest potential to change their lives”

(Esperian, 2010, p. 331).

Potential change of individuals it would seem is the primary reason that opportunities must be

available and extended to all incarcerated felons. Research suggests that through education a

structured life of work and learning- are the needed cornerstones-for former felons especially, providing

them proper construction of society’s acceptable norm foundations. Accountability for criminal

behaviors, proportional to the nature of offense, sentence imposed, and realization of effective crime

control for the safety of communities are reflective in American policies today (Andy Norton, 2002).

However, Criminal Justice Systems have pointed out a sobering truth: Criminal Justice systems cannot

eliminate crime, only apply application to the reform of those individuals perpetrating crime against

society.



December 11, 2011

References

Allen, F. A. (1959). Criminal Justice, Legal Values and The Rehabilitative Ideal. Criminal Law and

Administration, 226-227.

Andy Norton, T. C. (2002). Social Protection: Defining the field of Action and Policy. Development Policy

Review, 541-567.

Esperian, J. H. (2010). The Effect of Prison Education Programs on Recidivism. The Journal of Correctional

Education, 316-334.

Laudan, R. J. (2011). Deadly Dilemmas III: Some Kind Words For Preventive Detention. The Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology, 781-785.

Macionis, J. J. (2006). Society: The basics (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ogden, C. (1958). The Aims of the Criminal Law. Law and Continuting Probation, 401.
