Retributive Justice, by
Jon’a F Meyer is an article that primarily focuses on retribution style of
punishment and how it is best form punishment. The article has a few main
points and solid evidence to back up the author’s claim. Throughout the
article, it is apparent that the author favors retributive justice over any
other kind. However, retributive justice is not the only good form of
punishment, even though the author strongly believes that it is.
In many ways treatment, has proved to be more effective
than just regular punishment. In a different article, Punishment Fails, Rehabilitation Works., by James Gilligan, he
states that providing more programs in prisons decreases the chance recidivism.
Receiving a high school diploma program alone has had a 100 percent effective
in the past. If prisons were to develop more programs to help prisoners become
more contributing members of society upon release, they number of re-offenses
would go down. However, too many people believe that making people pay for what
they did is more important than making them learn from the mistakes they made. Now,
it is understandable that there are certain crimes where this may not be the
answer.
There are cold blooded rapists and murders who do not feel
remorse, therefore do not benefit from therapy. Still, understanding their
behavior is crucial in preventing it. Many who spend a significant amount of
time in prison are there mainly because they continue to offend. These people
are the ones that will gain the most from rehabilitation, psychotherapy, and
other educational programs. In learning, how to overcome their issues, it will
help them get out and stay out. Without adequate treatment, these people are
going in to prison and coming back within 3 years (Gilligan, 1).
Rehabilitation programs in jail and prisons have always
been limited. Many believe that feeling the need for revenge is outdated and
does not solve any of the underlying issues that led to the crime in the first
place. Taking the criminal away from being able to cause harm is the primary
focus for the government. In doing so they are not doing anything to help them
decrease their chances of reoffending once out. This also does not help the
issue of recidivism because, people leave and go back often which spends
taxpayer’s money and becomes nearly unmanageable. Meyer makes it clear in
various parts of his article that he favors the “eye for an eye” approach.
The authors diction throughout the article is indicative of
siding with retributive justice. For example, “The value of the retribution
cannot be cheapened by using it to compensate for inadequacies of the justice
system.” (para. 5) Using words like “cheapened” and “inadequacies” express his
emotion towards the justice system, and how it can diminish the worth of
retributive justice. However, for him, that is impossible because he knows the
true worth retributive justice and its importance to society. He thinks that
people must pay for their actions.
Meyer then, brings religion into his topic because he knows
a lot of people are religious and they will strongly take into consideration
what he says about it. He
explains how the concept of
retribution often reoccurs in religions, (para. 12). He then gives examples of
several religions and moments in which they used retribution as a way of
punishment. He does this to prove that most religions are guilty of doing this,
and that it is a necessary form of punishment. Throughout the rest of the
article he uses logos and ethos to show that retribution is the best form of
punishment, this appeals to the people who are not as religious or not even
religious at all. For instance, “No other punishment philosophy gives so much
importance to actus reus and mens rea.” This is a great example of ethos and
knowing actual criminal justice terms gives him more credibility on the topic.
Meyer is extremely good at being able to persuade his reader with the facts and
information was given in the article.
Retribution is key in punishing people and giving the
victims a somewhat sense of closure. As previously mentioned people should move
away from this ideal and consider the benefits of providing better treatment to
the offenders. This does not mean that the offenders will be receiving no sort
of punishment it just means that the punishment will be different from the norm
and potentially more effective. It is hard for society to even consider
changing the ways of punishment but it is obviously become necessary. If people
keep getting put in jail or prison for same crimes, there is something wrong
with them and it needs to be addressed and treated.
The idea of punishment is very important in society,
because most people feel that criminals must get what they deserve. When does
it become too much? When are, the good guys becoming the bad guys? As a
population, people need to focus more on helping each other, rather than just
keeping incapacitating. It is understandable that in order to prevent future
harm, that harm must be taken away. The people who harm need to realize what
they have done, and must receive some sort of help to understand their issues
better. In a way retribution is important, but it dismisses too many other
forms of punishment and does not give enough attention to the underlying issues
of each criminal.
Jon’a F Meyer, does a fantastic job at trying to get his
reader to side with retributive justice, and to understand the importance of
it. He even has a great section in which he mentions why people do not support
it, which shows the reader he is educated on all sides and knows what he is
saying is valid. In summation, the article was good in getting the point
across, but does not show in enough ways how retributive justice can fail.
sources:
Meyer,
Jon’a F. “Retributive Justice.” Britannica Online Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web.
09 Feb. 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment