It was an interesting video to watch and learn about the different types of punishment that there are in the justice system. I do see the problem in using the just deserts method of punishment; it can be bad to use because it just punishes a criminal because they did something bad, instead of help them be productive instead of being destructive to themselves and society. Other factors could come into play with the person, such as, it is their first offense and they could have been let go with a warning. It can also cost a lot of money because if we are punishing so many people for their crimes that means there is a lot of money being spent on punishment. I think rehabilitation is definitely the right way to go to help those convicted of a crime because it can teach them to be a productive influence on the society instead of focusing on punishing them for doing something wrong. Birdman789
While reading your blog something popped into mind. If in the long term we slice the incarcerated rate in half through programs like rehabilitation, how many jobs and factories could we create from the amount of money that we would save as a country? A short term solution to a long term problem could possibly save this country from any more financial hardships, at least in regards to having an extra 35 billion dollars a year to utilize instead of just trying to keep the penal system barely above water. Dynamics like this continuously make me think of the “what if’s.” Yes, it would take a few years but it is something I think we’d all like to see in our lifetimes, or for our families’ sake. - StrongArm789
This video is a great tool to learn from. While just deserts and retribution basically say to give the criminal the punishment that fits the crime it won't do much good. Sure they'll be punished and might learn from it but will they be able to return to society and be able to "fit in"? I think that with rehab being created it sort of defeats the idea of just deserts. Rehab was made to help a person be able to learn from their crime and be able to function in society again. With just deserts they will only learn that they will get punished for a little bit and be set from. Just deserts may work and may not work. I think having a little bit of just deserts and rehab together will help the criminal learn and be able to function in society after they are done doing the time, if they get a small enough amount of time. If its a life sentencing then its a different story because they won't be going back to the world. Maybe still some rehab just incase they are innocent but who knows. ICCRunner789
I definitely agree that having both rehab and just deserts can be more helpful than having one or the other. One focuses on punishing and the other helps them learn from their mistakes. If you just punish someone then it can deter someone from committing a crime but it could also just push them to commit more crimes. Rehab can help people but it could also not help all those incarcerated so they don’t learn anything. Birdman789
I agree rehab is ore useful because it doesn't treat the violators as animals but as people and it tries to help them instead of locking them up. I agree with you that it shouldn't be one or the other it should be a combination of both so its more fair for the person. Godzilla789
These theories are extremely interesting and warrant logical debate at the same time. As the video states, most individuals poled in the U.S. tend to lean towards either the theory of retribution or just desserts. Retribution calls for a punishment that fits offender’s crime, while just desserts calls for a more lenient punishment that fits the crime. Just desserts supporters believe that all punishments should fit the crime and be used equally among all individuals charged with a criminal action. Unfortunately, neither of the theories calls for discretion. They rather intend for a lack of discretion in the criminal justice field. If we take away discretion from police officers, judges, and correctional personnel, then the system would move towards collapse. Some individuals do not deserve as harsh of a punishment as another might. For instance, a first time drug offender who was caught with a joint should not be punished as harshly as someone who is taken to jail on a regular basis for drug charges. According to both theories, both individuals should be punished equally and according to the just desserts theory, as severely. This could cause a massive influx of prisoners or keep some individuals who deserve a lesser sentence from receiving said sentence. Neither theory focuses on deterrence either. Deterrence can be considered ineffective by some, but in all reality it can also be extremely effective. As the video states, some individuals may be less likely to commit a crime, because they won’t be able to see their families or find it a nasty experience to go to prison. In general, the loss of freedoms and the punishment associated with a crime may be enough to keep people from committing a crime. Rehabilitation is also an important concept that the theories of retribution and just desserts lack. Many individuals do not need to be sent to prison to learn a lesson or receive punishment. Individuals, like drug offenders, should be sent to counseling, or a rehab center to learn of the dangers of drugs and how to get clean. Rehab would give individuals an environment where they feel safe and protected, while prison could harden the offender and cause them to commit more crimes once they are released. In theory rehabilitation would be much more effective monetarily. The government could spend money on classes and medicine, instead of on prison upkeep and dealing with the prisoner’s specific needs in prison. Overall the theories are relatively logical and straightforward, but they lack true substance and create a society of prisoners instead of looking at ways of lowering the prisoner count and saving money in the U.S. Silverado789
There are many fascinating point brought up here by Professor Worley. Deterring crime will have an impact on both the incarcerated populations as well as the legal system no matter how crime is deterred. I understand there are many ways that the penal system is trying to reform, but spending 70 billion dollars a year to keep 2.4 million offenders behind bars seems like justice is indeed addicted to what they’ve created. In turn, I believe that this will scare the tax payers to the point of referring to objective movies like ‘The Purge’ before giving individuals a chance for rehabilitation or work-release programs. Personally, I don’t believe in the legal system making examples out of certain inmates either. The severity of the crime should be measured both by the law and the character of the individual; perhaps the judge could decide this with a state-appointed psychiatrist over a psychological examination. These ‘just deserts’ alone have probably filled up over half the prison population. Thousands locked up when maybe they were simply trying to find a way to feed their family, just this once perhaps. The harsher sentences have gone against many who don’t have access to education, welfare, or other means of bettering society. The actions are up to the individual but the system should realize or issue other means of deterrence. Most do seek pleasure over pain, unless we use examples from those who were already locked up and come out to act like the brutalization theory. The independent studies, like Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, prove that rationally the average person claims dominance over another when that other person is behind bars. That in itself is scary as hell. This holds true in prison and it would hold true also if too many inmates were given a chance to be released at the same time. Measuring this by means of probation is the determining factor. I believe with what Hawaii’s opportunity probation with enforcement did. If each state would do this over the course of a year and by various randomly chosen counties, then in a 20-year span we may just see the start of a great reform. - StrongArm789
This was one of the best videos we had to watch. The best part was the way he Explained each theory was great not only did he explain the pros of each theory he also explained the downside of each theory. Some people commit crime because they just want to they are crazy like that but most people commit crimes because they have to. They have to steal so they can eat or they have to kill to stay alive because that person is going to kill them. Kids join gangs for protection or to feel like they are part of a family. One of the best theories was the one that said to stop the crimes you have to make it so that the people don't have to commit the crimes. People should have access to food to shelter to a bed to sleep in at night. People shouldn't have to feel like they are in danger. Surviving is a basic human instinct and punishing someone for stealing food is inhumane. the punishment should also fit the crime and be swift. If someone stole a loaf of bread and someone assaulted someone they shouldn't get the same punishment. There are many different angles that you can look at the theories and the crimes but there is no right or wrong theory there is only proper justice. -Godzilla789
I completely agree with you. If someone commits a crime because their life, family, etc depends on it. They shouldn't get a very severe punishment or any at all depending on the circumstances and severity of the crime. Sometimes people have to do whatever it takes to supply for their family or themselves to survive. I also agree with you that there is no exactly right way to go about punishing crime because every crime and circumstance surrounding it is different.
I think, similar to countrygirl789, because different situations warrant different behaviors/actions. As a result we need to consider case by case on the sentencing. We can't always be fair and rational on everyone. But we have to use our best judgement and try to fit the crime with the time and have rehabilitation when warranted. Palmdaddy789
I agree, and disagree. Some people do indeed need to steal to provide themselves or their families with food. In today's modern age though, that may not be the whole case. Most people in the U.S. would not steal a can of soup from a grocery store just to feed themselves. Some might but most would not. The U.S., for example has many other methods of preserving life without the need for crime. We have soup kitchens and organizations who donate food to those in need. Most people who steal now-a-days do it for their own gain not just to survive. We rarely hear about people committing theft to just get buy, instead they do it to get that shiny new gadget or a few bucks. Also most individuals do not have to kill another just to stay safe, and even if they do, they are not reprimanded. For example, Florida's hold your ground statutes allows for the defense of oneself legally. On the other hand, I completely agree that survival is a basic human instinct. Those individuals who do need to act criminally to survive honestly do not deserve a harsh sentence. I also completely agree that the punishment should fit the crime and be swift. We can not be sending someone who stole one to many cans of soup to prison because as you said, that would be totally inhumane. Silverado789
This video was incredibly amazing in presenting the theories and how the video explain them all one by one. So far this video has been something that was really understanding to me as well as interesting to learn about. I actually learn some facts that I found useful to learn about. This particular theory about the General deterrence on how the society punishes an offender so that other people will not go into crime. I strongly agree with this theory because it makes sense and would be far for the society. However the Specific deterrence posts that if society punishes an individual offender he/she will commit less crimes. Which also is something that will be useful and fare for the society. So I strongly agree with both and agree on the as well. Shakalaka012
This video was very informative and it gave me a lot more insight into just desserts and deterrence. The video recognizes the prison problem and tells how just desserts theory and retribution theory had a part it causing it. I hope that the criminal justice will start taking into consideration the persons situation before sentencing them. This doesn't mean that the person shouldn't get punished, but instead not sentence somebody as long because it is their first time offense. Someone who gets in trouble for drugs shouldn't be in prison as long as a murder or rapist. The severity of the crime should always fit the punishment. The video also did a good job explaining the difference between specific deterrence and general deterrence. It also explained how the classical school still applies to deterrence of crime today.
It was interesting to watch and learn about the different types of punishment. I like how he explained each theory and gave both the pros and cons of each theory. The video recognizes the prison problem and explains how desserts theory and retribution theory had parts to do with causing the problem. They should take into consideration the persons situation before giving them their sentence. I think the theory that stood out the most to me was to stop crimes you have to make it so people don't have to commit crimes. A majority of people who commit crime do it to survive. They need to make it so everyone who needs it can have access to food and shelterer. If all people had access to those you would see a drop in the crime rate due to people not having to worry about surviving. dragons789
'A majority of people who commit crime do it to survive.' I like this dragons789. I'm sitting in my house not wanting of anything. Bank account is good. Cars are good. Family is good. Life is good. I don't have a desire to go rob, kill, or take anyone's constitutional rights away from them. :) This puts it into perspective for me. There are multiple opportunities for access to food/shelter in my town. Unfortunately crime still goes crazy, but for other reasons. Addiction, domestic abuse, lets just shorten this and say 'a series of bad decisions'. I agree with you Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the basis of all human needs. Time to go watch SB50 now! Go Panthers! Doberman789
I totally agree with you when you say "a majority of the people who commit crime do it to survive" It's true most people who commit theft and other crimes do it because thats all they know. They were raised in that type of environment. Other than like me, I was raised in a good middle class background, and i live very comfortable now. I don't have the urge to steal and take from others because i have everything that I need. As to where someone who comes from the "other side of the tracks" was not raised the same way I was. Thats where the criminal justice system needs to step in and think about the factors that caused this person to choose a life of crime. But then again, theres only so much the system can do for one person before it becomes a series problem. -dicaprio789
This week in class we covered Ch. 3 Sentencing to Punish or Reform. This was a good adjunct with classroom our classroom discussion. The line that sticks out "advocates of retribution and just deserts despise discretion." Retribution and just deserts are almost synonymous with one another. Except that retribution has a 'revenge' factor to it. The just deserts guys believe that the same punishment should be given, just desert has a non-vengeful approach. Oh my the Stanford Prison Experiment! This thing. We need to revisit this experiment. I think it will be just as caustic and nefarious as it was back in 1971. Maybe even worse given the positions are society has now. I have a firm grasp on what is specific and general deterrence because of this video. The deterrence theory: I got a kick out of this. I try to avoid pain and seek pleasure at all times! :) The biggest thing I took from this "Brutalization effect: increased punishment are associated with increased crime." I can see this. Locked up like an animal nothing to do besides survive. Thinking about what you're gonna do when you get out. 'Idle hands are the devils work.' I could see someone so pissed from being locked up and treated like a dog that when they get out they are focused only on revenge. The H.O.P.E. program worked because its Hawaii, all kidding aside. Paradise in, Paradise out. Hell in, Hell out. And its an island :) where you going to go. Cue the Hawaii 5-0 music! Doberman789
I like the idea to re-examine the Zimbardo Experiment now, and I agree with you that the results would be similar to those in the 1970s. I also thought it was very important to note the brutalization effect, which is the idea that increased punishment is associated with increased crime. Most of our philosophies and strategies have been built around punishing offenders punitively and being hard on them, but statistics show that this may not be the most effective approach. Thank you for reminding me of the idea that we discussed in class: "idle hands are the devils workshop," because I had totally forgotten about it and it related significantly to this video. Cards789
I always find it interesting how rehab is starting to grow and take over the way the correctional system runs. Just desserts sounds good on paper, but in context may not be the most appropriate for all crimes committed. Certain situations promote different results especially in poor areas as a results we must pay attention to the abuts and how's when deciding on sentencing. The system can't save everyone, but it can save someone's life in the process. Not all people ate bad, situations arise and people may not be equipped and deterrences no longer hold precedence on the suspect. I belive this will educate the masses,but won't help them on the outside. Palmdaddy788
I always find it interesting how rehab is starting to grow and take over the way the correctional system runs. Just desserts sounds good on paper, but in context may not be the most appropriate for all crimes committed. Certain situations promote different results especially in poor areas as a results we must pay attention to the abuts and how's when deciding on sentencing. The system can't save everyone, but it can save someone's life in the process. Not all people ate bad, situations arise and people may not be equipped and deterrences no longer hold precedence on the suspect. I belive this will educate the masses,but won't help them on the outside. Palmdaddy788
It was interesting to listen to both theories. It's interesting how both theories are different but all in all they want the same thing. They both agree on punishment fitting the crime. I don't really agree with dessert being the best option, sometimes getting lenient on people won't fix the problem. Some people deserve the cruelest punishment. One thing I will say is, we shouldn't be having people go to jail for selling drugs be punished the same way as a murder or rapist. There are a lot of things we need to work on in the criminal justice system that being one of the biggest issues. Does the crime fit the time? Of course if the person is a repeat offender, I say yes throw them in jail. But maybe one of the reasons they are a repeat offender comes from different circumstances like their home life, ext. It's all very "touchy" if you ask me. Not everyone can be "rehabbed" back into society. Sometimes i do feel we harsh on some more than others depending on who the person is, and what kind of life they live. We can only do so much for people in the criminal justice system, but what we should start focusing on is rehabilitation. I do believe thats one of the biggest problems we face. -dicaprio789
contreras12 while i was watching the video i was able find out the difference theories in this video it help explain the difference process in each court system.
I like the concept behind the just desserts but im not sure all crimes fit this theory. I agree 100% that judges don't look at the persons situation which led them to commit the crime, they are only worried about the crime itself and doing what it says to do in the book. I believe the criminal justice system needs to look into cases a little more before sentencing someone a crazy amount of time for a crime they wouldn't commit if they just had some help. KLICK789
This video was helpful with presenting the different types of theories. U.S. spends over 70 billion dollars a year incarcerating it's citizens. I think that is insane! Especially when most of them are for drug charges. What would hurt to help save money and get those addicts help, instead of putting them in adult time out. It does not make sense and I can argue that all day. But staying on topic, the video was very interesting and I did learn quite a bit. Like how people weigh the pleasure and punishment to decide whether or not to commit the crime. Certain, swift, and severe is how they use the deterrence theory. I find this interesting, we use one person as an example to prevent others from doing the same crime. Like a guinea pig? -Ibanez789
The idea of focusing more on ensuring punishment, rather than rehabilitation or deterrence is one that does not make much sense to me or an idea that I agree with. As the video stated, it costs approximately $70 billion to incarcerate the offenders that we do. Keeping that in mind, I would think that more people would find it important to focus on rehabilitation because it does not make sense to release unreformed offenders. This video also mentioned many things that we discussed in class. For example, the tripod of deterrence, which was important to Cesare Beccaria in the 1700's: the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment for crime. Another example is the discussion about the difference between retribution (involves retaliation against the criminal perpetrator) and just deserts (punishment is deserved-morally blameworthy). One of the things that I found to be most interesting in this video is something that I have learned about before, which was the Zimbardo experiment in 1971. From this experiment, they noted that the college students that were selected to be guards became brutal fairly quickly against the students who were selected as inmates, regardless of the fact that they all came into the experiment on an equal playing field. Another interesting theory was from Robert Martinson in 1974, who boldly decided "nothing works" in trying to rehabilitate or reform inmates. Overall, this video reinforced our discussion of chapter three. Cards789
It was an interesting video to watch and learn about the different types of punishment that there are in the justice system. I do see the problem in using the just deserts method of punishment; it can be bad to use because it just punishes a criminal because they did something bad, instead of help them be productive instead of being destructive to themselves and society. Other factors could come into play with the person, such as, it is their first offense and they could have been let go with a warning. It can also cost a lot of money because if we are punishing so many people for their crimes that means there is a lot of money being spent on punishment. I think rehabilitation is definitely the right way to go to help those convicted of a crime because it can teach them to be a productive influence on the society instead of focusing on punishing them for doing something wrong. Birdman789
ReplyDeleteWhile reading your blog something popped into mind. If in the long term we slice the incarcerated rate in half through programs like rehabilitation, how many jobs and factories could we create from the amount of money that we would save as a country? A short term solution to a long term problem could possibly save this country from any more financial hardships, at least in regards to having an extra 35 billion dollars a year to utilize instead of just trying to keep the penal system barely above water. Dynamics like this continuously make me think of the “what if’s.” Yes, it would take a few years but it is something I think we’d all like to see in our lifetimes, or for our families’ sake. - StrongArm789
DeleteThis video is a great tool to learn from. While just deserts and retribution basically say to give the criminal the punishment that fits the crime it won't do much good. Sure they'll be punished and might learn from it but will they be able to return to society and be able to "fit in"? I think that with rehab being created it sort of defeats the idea of just deserts. Rehab was made to help a person be able to learn from their crime and be able to function in society again. With just deserts they will only learn that they will get punished for a little bit and be set from. Just deserts may work and may not work. I think having a little bit of just deserts and rehab together will help the criminal learn and be able to function in society after they are done doing the time, if they get a small enough amount of time. If its a life sentencing then its a different story because they won't be going back to the world. Maybe still some rehab just incase they are innocent but who knows. ICCRunner789
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that having both rehab and just deserts can be more helpful than having one or the other. One focuses on punishing and the other helps them learn from their mistakes. If you just punish someone then it can deter someone from committing a crime but it could also just push them to commit more crimes. Rehab can help people but it could also not help all those incarcerated so they don’t learn anything. Birdman789
DeleteI agree rehab is ore useful because it doesn't treat the violators as animals but as people and it tries to help them instead of locking them up. I agree with you that it shouldn't be one or the other it should be a combination of both so its more fair for the person. Godzilla789
DeleteThese theories are extremely interesting and warrant logical debate at the same time. As the video states, most individuals poled in the U.S. tend to lean towards either the theory of retribution or just desserts. Retribution calls for a punishment that fits offender’s crime, while just desserts calls for a more lenient punishment that fits the crime. Just desserts supporters believe that all punishments should fit the crime and be used equally among all individuals charged with a criminal action. Unfortunately, neither of the theories calls for discretion. They rather intend for a lack of discretion in the criminal justice field. If we take away discretion from police officers, judges, and correctional personnel, then the system would move towards collapse. Some individuals do not deserve as harsh of a punishment as another might. For instance, a first time drug offender who was caught with a joint should not be punished as harshly as someone who is taken to jail on a regular basis for drug charges. According to both theories, both individuals should be punished equally and according to the just desserts theory, as severely. This could cause a massive influx of prisoners or keep some individuals who deserve a lesser sentence from receiving said sentence. Neither theory focuses on deterrence either. Deterrence can be considered ineffective by some, but in all reality it can also be extremely effective. As the video states, some individuals may be less likely to commit a crime, because they won’t be able to see their families or find it a nasty experience to go to prison. In general, the loss of freedoms and the punishment associated with a crime may be enough to keep people from committing a crime. Rehabilitation is also an important concept that the theories of retribution and just desserts lack. Many individuals do not need to be sent to prison to learn a lesson or receive punishment. Individuals, like drug offenders, should be sent to counseling, or a rehab center to learn of the dangers of drugs and how to get clean. Rehab would give individuals an environment where they feel safe and protected, while prison could harden the offender and cause them to commit more crimes once they are released. In theory rehabilitation would be much more effective monetarily. The government could spend money on classes and medicine, instead of on prison upkeep and dealing with the prisoner’s specific needs in prison. Overall the theories are relatively logical and straightforward, but they lack true substance and create a society of prisoners instead of looking at ways of lowering the prisoner count and saving money in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteSilverado789
There are many fascinating point brought up here by Professor Worley. Deterring crime will have an impact on both the incarcerated populations as well as the legal system no matter how crime is deterred. I understand there are many ways that the penal system is trying to reform, but spending 70 billion dollars a year to keep 2.4 million offenders behind bars seems like justice is indeed addicted to what they’ve created. In turn, I believe that this will scare the tax payers to the point of referring to objective movies like ‘The Purge’ before giving individuals a chance for rehabilitation or work-release programs. Personally, I don’t believe in the legal system making examples out of certain inmates either. The severity of the crime should be measured both by the law and the character of the individual; perhaps the judge could decide this with a state-appointed psychiatrist over a psychological examination. These ‘just deserts’ alone have probably filled up over half the prison population. Thousands locked up when maybe they were simply trying to find a way to feed their family, just this once perhaps. The harsher sentences have gone against many who don’t have access to education, welfare, or other means of bettering society. The actions are up to the individual but the system should realize or issue other means of deterrence. Most do seek pleasure over pain, unless we use examples from those who were already locked up and come out to act like the brutalization theory. The independent studies, like Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, prove that rationally the average person claims dominance over another when that other person is behind bars. That in itself is scary as hell. This holds true in prison and it would hold true also if too many inmates were given a chance to be released at the same time. Measuring this by means of probation is the determining factor. I believe with what Hawaii’s opportunity probation with enforcement did. If each state would do this over the course of a year and by various randomly chosen counties, then in a 20-year span we may just see the start of a great reform. - StrongArm789
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the best videos we had to watch. The best part was the way he Explained each theory was great not only did he explain the pros of each theory he also explained the downside of each theory. Some people commit crime because they just want to they are crazy like that but most people commit crimes because they have to. They have to steal so they can eat or they have to kill to stay alive because that person is going to kill them. Kids join gangs for protection or to feel like they are part of a family. One of the best theories was the one that said to stop the crimes you have to make it so that the people don't have to commit the crimes. People should have access to food to shelter to a bed to sleep in at night. People shouldn't have to feel like they are in danger. Surviving is a basic human instinct and punishing someone for stealing food is inhumane. the punishment should also fit the crime and be swift. If someone stole a loaf of bread and someone assaulted someone they shouldn't get the same punishment. There are many different angles that you can look at the theories and the crimes but there is no right or wrong theory there is only proper justice. -Godzilla789
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. If someone commits a crime because their life, family, etc depends on it. They shouldn't get a very severe punishment or any at all depending on the circumstances and severity of the crime. Sometimes people have to do whatever it takes to supply for their family or themselves to survive. I also agree with you that there is no exactly right way to go about punishing crime because every crime and circumstance surrounding it is different.
DeleteCountryGirl789
I think, similar to countrygirl789, because different situations warrant different behaviors/actions. As a result we need to consider case by case on the sentencing. We can't always be fair and rational on everyone. But we have to use our best judgement and try to fit the crime with the time and have rehabilitation when warranted.
DeletePalmdaddy789
I agree, and disagree. Some people do indeed need to steal to provide themselves or their families with food. In today's modern age though, that may not be the whole case. Most people in the U.S. would not steal a can of soup from a grocery store just to feed themselves. Some might but most would not. The U.S., for example has many other methods of preserving life without the need for crime. We have soup kitchens and organizations who donate food to those in need. Most people who steal now-a-days do it for their own gain not just to survive. We rarely hear about people committing theft to just get buy, instead they do it to get that shiny new gadget or a few bucks. Also most individuals do not have to kill another just to stay safe, and even if they do, they are not reprimanded. For example, Florida's hold your ground statutes allows for the defense of oneself legally. On the other hand, I completely agree that survival is a basic human instinct. Those individuals who do need to act criminally to survive honestly do not deserve a harsh sentence. I also completely agree that the punishment should fit the crime and be swift. We can not be sending someone who stole one to many cans of soup to prison because as you said, that would be totally inhumane.
DeleteSilverado789
This video was incredibly amazing in presenting the theories and how the video explain them all one by one. So far this video has been something that was really understanding to me as well as interesting to learn about. I actually learn some facts that I found useful to learn about. This particular theory about the General deterrence on how the society punishes an offender so that other people will not go into crime. I strongly agree with this theory because it makes sense and would be far for the society. However the Specific deterrence posts that if society punishes an individual offender he/she will commit less crimes. Which also is something that will be useful and fare for the society. So I strongly agree with both and agree on the as well. Shakalaka012
ReplyDeleteThis video was very informative and it gave me a lot more insight into just desserts and deterrence. The video recognizes the prison problem and tells how just desserts theory and retribution theory had a part it causing it. I hope that the criminal justice will start taking into consideration the persons situation before sentencing them. This doesn't mean that the person shouldn't get punished, but instead not sentence somebody as long because it is their first time offense. Someone who gets in trouble for drugs shouldn't be in prison as long as a murder or rapist. The severity of the crime should always fit the punishment. The video also did a good job explaining the difference between specific deterrence and general deterrence. It also explained how the classical school still applies to deterrence of crime today.
ReplyDeleteCountryGirl789
It was interesting to watch and learn about the different types of punishment. I like how he explained each theory and gave both the pros and cons of each theory. The video recognizes the prison problem and explains how desserts theory and retribution theory had parts to do with causing the problem. They should take into consideration the persons situation before giving them their sentence. I think the theory that stood out the most to me was to stop crimes you have to make it so people don't have to commit crimes. A majority of people who commit crime do it to survive. They need to make it so everyone who needs it can have access to food and shelterer. If all people had access to those you would see a drop in the crime rate due to people not having to worry about surviving. dragons789
ReplyDelete'A majority of people who commit crime do it to survive.' I like this dragons789. I'm sitting in my house not wanting of anything. Bank account is good. Cars are good. Family is good. Life is good. I don't have a desire to go rob, kill, or take anyone's constitutional rights away from them. :) This puts it into perspective for me. There are multiple opportunities for access to food/shelter in my town. Unfortunately crime still goes crazy, but for other reasons. Addiction, domestic abuse, lets just shorten this and say 'a series of bad decisions'. I agree with you Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the basis of all human needs. Time to go watch SB50 now! Go Panthers! Doberman789
DeleteI totally agree with you when you say "a majority of the people who commit crime do it to survive" It's true most people who commit theft and other crimes do it because thats all they know. They were raised in that type of environment. Other than like me, I was raised in a good middle class background, and i live very comfortable now. I don't have the urge to steal and take from others because i have everything that I need. As to where someone who comes from the "other side of the tracks" was not raised the same way I was. Thats where the criminal justice system needs to step in and think about the factors that caused this person to choose a life of crime. But then again, theres only so much the system can do for one person before it becomes a series problem. -dicaprio789
DeleteThis week in class we covered Ch. 3 Sentencing to Punish or Reform. This was a good adjunct with classroom our classroom discussion. The line that sticks out "advocates of retribution and just deserts despise discretion." Retribution and just deserts are almost synonymous with one another. Except that retribution has a 'revenge' factor to it. The just deserts guys believe that the same punishment should be given, just desert has a non-vengeful approach. Oh my the Stanford Prison Experiment! This thing. We need to revisit this experiment. I think it will be just as caustic and nefarious as it was back in 1971. Maybe even worse given the positions are society has now. I have a firm grasp on what is specific and general deterrence because of this video. The deterrence theory: I got a kick out of this. I try to avoid pain and seek pleasure at all times! :) The biggest thing I took from this "Brutalization effect: increased punishment are associated with increased crime." I can see this. Locked up like an animal nothing to do besides survive. Thinking about what you're gonna do when you get out. 'Idle hands are the devils work.' I could see someone so pissed from being locked up and treated like a dog that when they get out they are focused only on revenge. The H.O.P.E. program worked because its Hawaii, all kidding aside. Paradise in, Paradise out. Hell in, Hell out. And its an island :) where you going to go. Cue the Hawaii 5-0 music! Doberman789
ReplyDeleteI like the idea to re-examine the Zimbardo Experiment now, and I agree with you that the results would be similar to those in the 1970s. I also thought it was very important to note the brutalization effect, which is the idea that increased punishment is associated with increased crime. Most of our philosophies and strategies have been built around punishing offenders punitively and being hard on them, but statistics show that this may not be the most effective approach. Thank you for reminding me of the idea that we discussed in class: "idle hands are the devils workshop," because I had totally forgotten about it and it related significantly to this video. Cards789
DeleteI always find it interesting how rehab is starting to grow and take over the way the correctional system runs. Just desserts sounds good on paper, but in context may not be the most appropriate for all crimes committed. Certain situations promote different results especially in poor areas as a results we must pay attention to the abuts and how's when deciding on sentencing. The system can't save everyone, but it can save someone's life in the process. Not all people ate bad, situations arise and people may not be equipped and deterrences no longer hold precedence on the suspect. I belive this will educate the masses,but won't help them on the outside.
ReplyDeletePalmdaddy788
I always find it interesting how rehab is starting to grow and take over the way the correctional system runs. Just desserts sounds good on paper, but in context may not be the most appropriate for all crimes committed. Certain situations promote different results especially in poor areas as a results we must pay attention to the abuts and how's when deciding on sentencing. The system can't save everyone, but it can save someone's life in the process. Not all people ate bad, situations arise and people may not be equipped and deterrences no longer hold precedence on the suspect. I belive this will educate the masses,but won't help them on the outside.
ReplyDeletePalmdaddy788
It was interesting to listen to both theories. It's interesting how both theories are different but all in all they want the same thing. They both agree on punishment fitting the crime. I don't really agree with dessert being the best option, sometimes getting lenient on people won't fix the problem. Some people deserve the cruelest punishment. One thing I will say is, we shouldn't be having people go to jail for selling drugs be punished the same way as a murder or rapist. There are a lot of things we need to work on in the criminal justice system that being one of the biggest issues. Does the crime fit the time? Of course if the person is a repeat offender, I say yes throw them in jail. But maybe one of the reasons they are a repeat offender comes from different circumstances like their home life, ext. It's all very "touchy" if you ask me. Not everyone can be "rehabbed" back into society. Sometimes i do feel we harsh on some more than others depending on who the person is, and what kind of life they live. We can only do so much for people in the criminal justice system, but what we should start focusing on is rehabilitation. I do believe thats one of the biggest problems we face. -dicaprio789
ReplyDeletecontreras12 while i was watching the video i was able find out the difference theories in this video it help explain the difference process in each court system.
ReplyDeleteI like the concept behind the just desserts but im not sure all crimes fit this theory. I agree 100% that judges don't look at the persons situation which led them to commit the crime, they are only worried about the crime itself and doing what it says to do in the book. I believe the criminal justice system needs to look into cases a little more before sentencing someone a crazy amount of time for a crime they wouldn't commit if they just had some help.
ReplyDeleteKLICK789
This video was helpful with presenting the different types of theories. U.S. spends over 70 billion dollars a year incarcerating it's citizens. I think that is insane! Especially when most of them are for drug charges. What would hurt to help save money and get those addicts help, instead of putting them in adult time out. It does not make sense and I can argue that all day. But staying on topic, the video was very interesting and I did learn quite a bit. Like how people weigh the pleasure and punishment to decide whether or not to commit the crime. Certain, swift, and severe is how they use the deterrence theory. I find this interesting, we use one person as an example to prevent others from doing the same crime. Like a guinea pig?
ReplyDelete-Ibanez789
The idea of focusing more on ensuring punishment, rather than rehabilitation or deterrence is one that does not make much sense to me or an idea that I agree with. As the video stated, it costs approximately $70 billion to incarcerate the offenders that we do. Keeping that in mind, I would think that more people would find it important to focus on rehabilitation because it does not make sense to release unreformed offenders. This video also mentioned many things that we discussed in class. For example, the tripod of deterrence, which was important to Cesare Beccaria in the 1700's: the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment for crime. Another example is the discussion about the difference between retribution (involves retaliation against the criminal perpetrator) and just deserts (punishment is deserved-morally blameworthy). One of the things that I found to be most interesting in this video is something that I have learned about before, which was the Zimbardo experiment in 1971. From this experiment, they noted that the college students that were selected to be guards became brutal fairly quickly against the students who were selected as inmates, regardless of the fact that they all came into the experiment on an equal playing field. Another interesting theory was from Robert Martinson in 1974, who boldly decided "nothing works" in trying to rehabilitate or reform inmates. Overall, this video reinforced our discussion of chapter three. Cards789
ReplyDelete