Retributive Approach To Criminal Justice

To maintain peace and respect among members of a society is to achieve justice. Justice is to ensure fairness, equity, and moral righteousness through law and order. That is, by imposing the idea that there are consequences for deviant behavior, actions that serve to threaten the norm and disrupt the peace of the public. In essence, the result of socially, individually, and criminally harmful behavior is to endure punishment. Though, of what purpose is being served if the punishment inflicted fails to independently acknowledge the offender as an individual, by personalizing the punishment. This implies that a reoffender who is familiar with the legal system has adapted and aware of the humane limitations of punishment. Whereas, a first time offender entering the system will be deterred and more anxious for release into society after serving a short, swift, and effective punishment (Bank 2004). Therefore, recognizing a distinction between the two offenders described, it would be most effective for our punishment system to be developed on the basis of the retributive theory which accounts the history
of the individual standing before the law. The retributive in contrast to the utilitarian theoretical approach to punishment is considered a backwards approach to crime.
Indeed it is. The retributive approach focuses on the other components that are relevant to the punishment process and moral code of society such as the past actions of the offender, the nature of the criminal act in question, and being held accountable for the harm caused. Society assumes to be actively involved in the retributive approach as the utilitarian approach attempts to isolate the problem. Although the utilitarian approach aims to prevent future crime, by functioning to maintain the safety of the public, it does so in a very rigid fashion. That is, even if the means to prevent future crimes or doing the ‘greater good’ results in mass incarceration and imprisoning of innocence rather than focusing on the reduction of crime (Bank
2004). The retribution theory believes in the historic approach to crime and punishment an ‘eye for an eye.’ Except, it is no longer imposing the literal term but taking legal measurements to ensure that the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the level of harm caused. A problematic feature of a retributive approach is measuring the punishment to the offense. Two people commit the same crime, and one of the two is punished more severely for various reasons. This results in intermediate sentencing and disproportionality. The greater outcome is that the system has upheld moral codes of society as well as legal standards, not to mention the punishment is personalized and the offender is being held accountable for their actions. Although the offender is being legally held accountable, it is only effective if the offender also upholds the standards of society. However, one can assume that due to the nature of criminality, an offender lacks regard to the standards of society. Thus, provokes criminality. Therefore, there is no retribution or accountability for the harm inflicted. There is also no deterrence or utilitarian approach if the offender is incompetent or simply lacks respect for society. Ultimately, it would appear to be no benefit of the punishment. Furthermore, there is still a greater good in a building our justice system on the basis of retributive theory. That is by continuing to impose punishment proportionate to the crime. However, by targeting psychological and rehabilitative approaches specific to the offender and aiming to reducing crime rather than just general suffering of the offender.