All the theories i agree with to a certain degree i can see where they may have thought this makes someone act a certain way but when it comes down to it for most cases its all on that person and free will you know whats right and whats wrong when to say no when to say yes there are some cases that this is hard to use tho because some people dont know whats right from wrong and that might be because theres someting wrong with the brain low iq bad parents and its hard to do those casese but you just got to try and look into what could have made them do this and then punish or send to some type of help and get them better or teach them right from wrong i think if you punish someone fast and quick maybe to to hard at first is maybe the best way to go at it i dont know really but i really think most is a free will thing cowboys003
You have a good point about individuals not being aware of the crime they committed due to their mental state. It's not right for a young individual to be sent to prison for a long time for the possession of drugs because they weren't involved in a violent crime, or harming anyone at the time, but they should get a some time in jail, just not 10 or more years in prison. In other cases, someone could be defending themselves and have to kill the other person since their live is in danger. These theories aren't appropriated for the court system because they cause criminals to get unfair sentences. -RW003
You made a really good example. There are quite a bit of people who really just messed up, and committed a crime by accident, but inside they are not a bad person. So using this way of punishing would only make the certain individual's life a living hell, and not being able to have a second chance to change into a beneficial person to the society. JZ003
It is hard to know which way is the best way, every human being has their own individual mindset and are influenced certain ways, there is not a catch all for all the personalities differences that criminals have. Like we often talk about in class, you have one guy #1 that needs money for food because he spent the rest of this month’s money on his little kids’ birthday present and smuggles a kilo from one state to another and will most likely never attempt such a crime ever again, but then you’ve got guy #2 that makes a living having his guys smuggle a kilo across state lines, but this time he had to do it himself because he gunned down one of his transporting mules for mouthing off to him. Guy #1 probably would have never have thought about doing this kind of dirty business if there had been a larger deterrence, whereas guy #2 would have done the transport whether there was more deterrence or not. The fact that both Just Deserts and Retribution ignore the fact that each situation can vary, take away the judge’s discretion, and slap the same sentence on both of these offenders is the wrong way to go about things in my opinion. Sure we need to punish those who break the law, small or big, but we might make guy #1 into someone he would have never been if we had given our judge’s discretion between guy #1 and guy #2. – NOsaints003
This video brings up some good points as it describes the differences between just deserts and retribution punishments. It goes on to point out that those in favor of the "Just Desert" style tend to be those who root for a more lenient style of punishment, while those who prefer the "Retribution" style tend to be in favor of a more strict response to crime. I believe that our professor hit the nail on the head: to have a "perfect" criminal justice system, we must have very fluid and flexible boundaries and circumstances that can weave in and our of using either style of punishment depending on the factors of the crime. Depending on if a crime is hot/cold blooded, the history of the criminal in question, etc etc. All these mediating or aggravating factors need to be looked at in depth by whatever judge or jury is appointed to these cases. Unfortunately this idea of a perfect criminal justice system is already going to fail because it would require human being to work together across the country, as well as be unbiased and as fair as possible. So, odds are that that's not going to happen any time soon. Which means this: if we want to have as close to a perfect criminal justice system as we can (being run by the imperfect humans that we are), we need to start rehabilitating our criminals more effectively. If we lean towards a more strict style of punishment where those convicted get higher time, thats fine. But if they're coming out of prison more angry and upset at the world than when they came in, how effective and efficient are we really being? CK003
I don't agree with the Redistribution/Just Desserts Theories because not all criminal acts should be punished with unfair sentences. Sometimes the individual had to defend themselves, or it was a recklessly crime because they didn't intentionally hurt the victim. The Just Desserts Theory is more fit for the court system because it's more lenient toward the criminal than the Retribution is when it comes to sentencing a criminal for the crime that they committed. Neither of these theories believe in rehabilitation, which is not good for the criminals in jail and prison because it creates an overcrowding in the corrections and affects their minds. If these theories were based on every single crime committed with no circumstances then there would be no room to put these criminals behind bars. Rehabilitation has the power to give the criminals a second chance at live again and most likely won't commit the same crime again because they have the ability and opportunity to fit back into society. The main goal for the court system and corrections system should be for the individuals behind bars to get back out into the world, instead of being behind bars because if they don't, it becomes overcrowded and it costs the state more money to keep them behind bars rather them being rehabilitated and put back into society. General Deterrence is an aspect that should be taken as a lesson for the citizens because there had to be someone to commit that crime first in order for individuals not to commit the same criminal act because it maintains society and keeps the community safe from crime. Our criminal justice needs to rethink how we approach our criminals and treat them as humans, not as objects. Rehabilitation is the key to treating these individuals and giving them the opportunity to better themselves as human beings and steer away from criminal acts. -RW003
In this video, he talks about the Just Desert/Retribution theory, I personally do not favor this idea. Just Desert/Retribution does not act as a prevention for the general public to commit crime, which means it only effects one person or a several people. The government would spend a lot of tax payer money to punish only this certain person, it would make no difference to the society what so ever. This only means it has too much limits, causing no difference in the field of deterring future crimes. This however is good way to make sure certain dangerous individual to be locked up and never see the light of the day, giving the victim's family a sense of retribution and comfort. This theory have too little good, and too much limit or even too useless in the bigger picture. Just Desert favors to give everyone who does the same crime the same punishment, and not putting discretion in the picture. This would result in certain individual who were forced to commit a theft to feed his or her family, and isn't truly a bad person, but since this theory is in play, he or she would be punished the same as people who are thieves by profession, or thieves who steals for the fun and money. If the government adapting this as the primary way of punishing a person, this would make the court system into a robotic, and less humanistic like system, which only put more good people into the prison system. A person's would be ruined since there are no second chances. I personally think this theory is just a better way to make our court system and our society a worst place for us all. There are no benefits that is drastic or good about this theory. A example would be buying your first car, and later found out it malfunctions, but the dealer says "you bought the car like everyone else, so sucks to be you, NO RETURN POLICY!!!". JZ003
I can agree with you on some stances. In today's society it just comes to show us that the Criminal Justice System is not sharing something with us. You are right when you say there are no benefits that is drastic or good about the theory. Nothing will come good out of the theory because it just's a way for the offenders to end up back in prison. Maybe our Criminal Justice System is giving up on us. GoodVibes003
I definitely agree with how you put this, but I just want to bring up the other side of the coin, and that is the discrimination problem we have when we let some judges take the reins. I am not saying I agree with Just Desert or Retribution, but I think the answer is somewhere in between those and a system that gives people who don’t deserve as much punishment more of a chance in our system. We have to find the happy medium. -NOsaints003
I agree with you when you talk about discretion. I don't think that everything should be black and white. I think that there should be a guideline for a crime, like putting x amount of years on a crime, but I also feel like we should have discretion involved too, because like you said, what if there is that guy, that's a decent guy but he was stealing to feed his family. So, I feel like there is ALWAYS going to be that special circumstance. SCGC003
When he mentions on how to look at the offenders circumstances they also have to look at how that offender is going to be harmful to society and mainly look at on how that offender is going to punished for the things that he/she has done. I don't think the Criminal Justice System balances the scales of justice. I mean every time we turn on the news and there could be something else going on that doesn't shock me anymore because everyone has no way of making sure that the police are on their side anymore. Well now let's see if the Criminal Justice System would let the people who are not meant to be incarcerated in prison today maybe the government wouldn't have to spend billions of tax paying dollars just to build more prisons because all of the other ones are "crowded" right. It won't reduce crime it will the money that is going towards these prisons and jails are just going to make the country go broke because of all of the fundings. Now if someone where to basically break the law and if they have a problem then they need to take that certain individual out of society because who knows what he or she might be capable of in the long run. Taking the criminal offenders off the streets is one thing but to arrest someone who maybe only broke the law once and giving them a harsh punishment is another thing. Maybe it is time for us to look further into depth about how to balance out the courts and to make sure the sentencing process is going how it is suppose to be going. GoodVibes003
This video takes two theories that are both related to sentencing and corrections. The first theory is the just desert theory. This theory focuses on the just the individual committing the crime and his or her action. This theory does not look at the circumstances leading up to the crime or during the crime. The only focus is to have a just punishment for the individuals action. The second theory was the Retribution theory. Although this theory focuses only on the punishment of the individual, it is also after a just punishment that matches the crime committed by the individual. Out of the two of these theories to corrections retribution tends to be the more popular in society. This is due to many people wanting justice to be served and a equal punishment to the crime. The problem with both of these theories is that they give no room for change. The video states that $7 billion dollars is spent in the United States on prisons and keeping people locked up. This money can be spent on rehabilitation and keeping individuals out of the system and placing them back into society so that they may benefit. The video also discusses the deterrence theory. Many argue that to reduce crime the criminal justice system needs to maximize punishment to minimize crime. The down side to deterrence is that some people can simply not be deterred. An example is a peer pressure situation when an individual conforms and commits the act regardless of the punishment. Another problem is that most individuals will not acknowledge the punishment of the crime if they do not believe they will be punished in the first place. With deterrence there has to be a time restraint that makes sure criminals are sentences swiftly. If there is a time laps between the crime and the sentencing many individuals will not think about the punishment before they commit the crime. All of these theories have not been able to solve the corrections ever growing population. This is why rehabilitation has become so popular to the corrections system today. -Bulls003
I agree with both theories to an extent. The first part of the video mentioned that we spend $70 billion dollars and we want to invest it in a manner that we are reducing crime. Over the past year, we know that crime has actually reduced within the past year, but is that strictly from rehabilitation from being incarcerated. Also, both of the theories will agree that the punishment should fit the crime, which I too agree with. If someone get caught with a joint, and it's their first offense, while they're attending school, etc., I feel as though they should maybe just get a fine and maybe some community service or something. I know there are cases where these people are getting YEARS for petty offenses. Then I feel as though, yeah, they are going to come out possibly worse than they were when they came in for their petty offense. I also think that we should have more rehabilition programs and that they should actually be offered to people, because maybe we don't have enough programs, or maybe they aren't being offered.. Adding to that last statement, my step dad was an addict and he was offered, and attended, several different rehabilitation programs, but none of them worked until he actually wanted to stop and came to terms with the fact that he had a problem that needed to be attended too. I feel like that can also be an issue, that fact that maybe some of the people there don't want to be rehabilitated. I also remember learning about the study talked about in sociology and I thought that it was very interesting that we can put these people in these different roles and then they start acting as though they were actually that role. It makes me wonder if that is how people are once they are incarcerated, is that they take that role even after they get out. SCGC003
Just deserts makes a lot more sense when it comes to sentencing than most types of punishments handed down. Unfortunately just because its the easiest to hand out or maybe the most effective in some states doesn't mean it is the best option. Just as I explained in the other article an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Meaning doing the things that we are putting people away for is kind of redundant. If we were to the same thing such as kill, rape, ect. to the newly found criminals that they did before they were handed down their sentence is going to have a lot more negative affects with the people around them. And many times over when people receive this type of sentencing they are often not given the fairness they need. If a mother gets caught stealing food for her children do you feel like she should get the same amount of time in jail as the girl who stole her neighbors car? I honestly feel like yes under the court of law there should be some kind of punishment but it should also be caused by the person who committed the crime. Another example is a robber comes into your house and you shoot him do you feel like you should go to jail for 25 years such as any other murderer would? In Illinois if that robber posed no threat you have no right to kill them. Now I don't know about you but if someone comes into my house uninvited they're getting a whole bunch of lead their direction. And in this type of situation if your unlucky to get a deterrence type of sentencing you will go to prison for a long time and most likely come out a more of a criminal than from when you went in. -BikeMaker003
In the first part of the video he stated that the U.S. spends $70 billion annually on incarceration of prisoners. That is an astronomically high number to spend just on prisoners. The u.s. needs to invest this money on trying to rehabilitate more prisoners and to hopefully reduce crime. The stanford prison experiment was interesting. I learned about this in my criminal justice class at Eureka as well. I found it interesting that the guards became so violent towards the prisoners. It was interesting to note that the prisoners took the punishments as well and some even said they deserved to be punished. Now keep in mind this is a FAKE prison. None of the so called prisoners did anything to warrant imprisonment, but all the participants took the experiment down a dark road. In the past the views on the correctional system was very disapproving. The public honestly believed that nothing would work on rehabilitating the offender. In recent years, public opinion has started to shift, and well as the corrections attitude toward prisoners. There has been more rehabilitation in prisons recently, and the public approves of the rehabilitation.JE003
I totally agree with you about 70 billion dollars. Because we should definitely not be spending that much money on jails, that's money that could be going towards our communities. If they used that much money on treatment facilities I think our incarceration numbers would be a lot better than what it is now. I remember watching that Stanford video in my CRJ 110 class at Aurora University. It was very interesting to see and understand their point of view. I kind of think in the past views on the correctional system was better the local police. Giving the fact of all those videos and stories, we watched and listened to.-K9003
I agree with the just desert theory. Some should only have a fair sentence based on the severity of the crime they committed.I don't think deterrence is really effective. We have all seen or heard of someone on probation who still smokes, or drinks and some how finds a way to cheat a test . If we keep letting people off easy they wont take the criminal justice system serious. However, over population in prisons is a serious issue. We cant afford to arrest everyone who has committed a crime, so i feel like we should focus on more serious crimes. chi003
Every last one of the theories presented in this video was really eye opening. Because breaking down Just Deserts and Retribution, really makes a person wonder. Is this reason why our criminal justice system it messed up so bad?. He stated that the "U.S. spends over 70 billion dollars a year on incarcerations." That makes me wonder where the rest of the money going that we spend?. But that shows that our country doesn't let people off easy and that we care about our citizens safety.-K9003
I am so for rehabilitation! I do believe that we need to be tough on crime however, we need to look at background history and what they've been through before punishing I think that by doing that and helping them it might give them an advantage, especially seeing how living in poor neighborhoods and lack of education is reason for crime! It's so sad to know that in the criminal justice system we can't help people we lock them up through away the key and forget about them put them back into society and expect them to be okay. And with no rehabilitation and like we discussed in class for men for every hundred dollars,there's four dollars spent on rehabilitation and we wonder why recidivism is so high? I feel that if we look at the person look at the crime and try to help it will bring our prison population down,our jail population down,we need to help not just lock up throw away the key and forget about ! We are the future of criminal justice and we need to get together on this!! And come up with a plan to help rather than forget about ! It's so sad to go into juvenile detention center, and know that they much rather be there then go home..that just goes to show you we need to help neighborhoods rather than just going in full force and gusto police type attitude and locking them up MITHGTS003
All the theories i agree with to a certain degree i can see where they may have thought this makes someone act a certain way but when it comes down to it for most cases its all on that person and free will you know whats right and whats wrong when to say no when to say yes there are some cases that this is hard to use tho because some people dont know whats right from wrong and that might be because theres someting wrong with the brain low iq bad parents and its hard to do those casese but you just got to try and look into what could have made them do this and then punish or send to some type of help and get them better or teach them right from wrong i think if you punish someone fast and quick maybe to to hard at first is maybe the best way to go at it i dont know really but i really think most is a free will thing cowboys003
ReplyDeleteYou have a good point about individuals not being aware of the crime they committed due to their mental state. It's not right for a young individual to be sent to prison for a long time for the possession of drugs because they weren't involved in a violent crime, or harming anyone at the time, but they should get a some time in jail, just not 10 or more years in prison. In other cases, someone could be defending themselves and have to kill the other person since their live is in danger. These theories aren't appropriated for the court system because they cause criminals to get unfair sentences. -RW003
DeleteYou made a really good example. There are quite a bit of people who really just messed up, and committed a crime by accident, but inside they are not a bad person. So using this way of punishing would only make the certain individual's life a living hell, and not being able to have a second chance to change into a beneficial person to the society. JZ003
DeleteIt is hard to know which way is the best way, every human being has their own individual mindset and are influenced certain ways, there is not a catch all for all the personalities differences that criminals have. Like we often talk about in class, you have one guy #1 that needs money for food because he spent the rest of this month’s money on his little kids’ birthday present and smuggles a kilo from one state to another and will most likely never attempt such a crime ever again, but then you’ve got guy #2 that makes a living having his guys smuggle a kilo across state lines, but this time he had to do it himself because he gunned down one of his transporting mules for mouthing off to him. Guy #1 probably would have never have thought about doing this kind of dirty business if there had been a larger deterrence, whereas guy #2 would have done the transport whether there was more deterrence or not. The fact that both Just Deserts and Retribution ignore the fact that each situation can vary, take away the judge’s discretion, and slap the same sentence on both of these offenders is the wrong way to go about things in my opinion. Sure we need to punish those who break the law, small or big, but we might make guy #1 into someone he would have never been if we had given our judge’s discretion between guy #1 and guy #2. – NOsaints003
ReplyDeleteThis video brings up some good points as it describes the differences between just deserts and retribution punishments. It goes on to point out that those in favor of the "Just Desert" style tend to be those who root for a more lenient style of punishment, while those who prefer the "Retribution" style tend to be in favor of a more strict response to crime. I believe that our professor hit the nail on the head: to have a "perfect" criminal justice system, we must have very fluid and flexible boundaries and circumstances that can weave in and our of using either style of punishment depending on the factors of the crime. Depending on if a crime is hot/cold blooded, the history of the criminal in question, etc etc. All these mediating or aggravating factors need to be looked at in depth by whatever judge or jury is appointed to these cases. Unfortunately this idea of a perfect criminal justice system is already going to fail because it would require human being to work together across the country, as well as be unbiased and as fair as possible. So, odds are that that's not going to happen any time soon. Which means this: if we want to have as close to a perfect criminal justice system as we can (being run by the imperfect humans that we are), we need to start rehabilitating our criminals more effectively. If we lean towards a more strict style of punishment where those convicted get higher time, thats fine. But if they're coming out of prison more angry and upset at the world than when they came in, how effective and efficient are we really being? CK003
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the Redistribution/Just Desserts Theories because not all criminal acts should be punished with unfair sentences. Sometimes the individual had to defend themselves, or it was a recklessly crime because they didn't intentionally hurt the victim. The Just Desserts Theory is more fit for the court system because it's more lenient toward the criminal than the Retribution is when it comes to sentencing a criminal for the crime that they committed. Neither of these theories believe in rehabilitation, which is not good for the criminals in jail and prison because it creates an overcrowding in the corrections and affects their minds. If these theories were based on every single crime committed with no circumstances then there would be no room to put these criminals behind bars. Rehabilitation has the power to give the criminals a second chance at live again and most likely won't commit the same crime again because they have the ability and opportunity to fit back into society. The main goal for the court system and corrections system should be for the individuals behind bars to get back out into the world, instead of being behind bars because if they don't, it becomes overcrowded and it costs the state more money to keep them behind bars rather them being rehabilitated and put back into society. General Deterrence is an aspect that should be taken as a lesson for the citizens because there had to be someone to commit that crime first in order for individuals not to commit the same criminal act because it maintains society and keeps the community safe from crime. Our criminal justice needs to rethink how we approach our criminals and treat them as humans, not as objects. Rehabilitation is the key to treating these individuals and giving them the opportunity to better themselves as human beings and steer away from criminal acts. -RW003
ReplyDeleteIn this video, he talks about the Just Desert/Retribution theory, I personally do not favor this idea. Just Desert/Retribution does not act as a prevention for the general public to commit crime, which means it only effects one person or a several people. The government would spend a lot of tax payer money to punish only this certain person, it would make no difference to the society what so ever. This only means it has too much limits, causing no difference in the field of deterring future crimes. This however is good way to make sure certain dangerous individual to be locked up and never see the light of the day, giving the victim's family a sense of retribution and comfort. This theory have too little good, and too much limit or even too useless in the bigger picture. Just Desert favors to give everyone who does the same crime the same punishment, and not putting discretion in the picture. This would result in certain individual who were forced to commit a theft to feed his or her family, and isn't truly a bad person, but since this theory is in play, he or she would be punished the same as people who are thieves by profession, or thieves who steals for the fun and money. If the government adapting this as the primary way of punishing a person, this would make the court system into a robotic, and less humanistic like system, which only put more good people into the prison system. A person's would be ruined since there are no second chances. I personally think this theory is just a better way to make our court system and our society a worst place for us all. There are no benefits that is drastic or good about this theory. A example would be buying your first car, and later found out it malfunctions, but the dealer says "you bought the car like everyone else, so sucks to be you, NO RETURN POLICY!!!". JZ003
ReplyDeleteI can agree with you on some stances. In today's society it just comes to show us that the Criminal Justice System is not sharing something with us. You are right when you say there are no benefits that is drastic or good about the theory. Nothing will come good out of the theory because it just's a way for the offenders to end up back in prison. Maybe our Criminal Justice System is giving up on us. GoodVibes003
DeleteI definitely agree with how you put this, but I just want to bring up the other side of the coin, and that is the discrimination problem we have when we let some judges take the reins. I am not saying I agree with Just Desert or Retribution, but I think the answer is somewhere in between those and a system that gives people who don’t deserve as much punishment more of a chance in our system. We have to find the happy medium. -NOsaints003
DeleteI agree with you when you talk about discretion. I don't think that everything should be black and white. I think that there should be a guideline for a crime, like putting x amount of years on a crime, but I also feel like we should have discretion involved too, because like you said, what if there is that guy, that's a decent guy but he was stealing to feed his family. So, I feel like there is ALWAYS going to be that special circumstance. SCGC003
DeleteWhen he mentions on how to look at the offenders circumstances they also have to look at how that offender is going to be harmful to society and mainly look at on how that offender is going to punished for the things that he/she has done. I don't think the Criminal Justice System balances the scales of justice. I mean every time we turn on the news and there could be something else going on that doesn't shock me anymore because everyone has no way of making sure that the police are on their side anymore. Well now let's see if the Criminal Justice System would let the people who are not meant to be incarcerated in prison today maybe the government wouldn't have to spend billions of tax paying dollars just to build more prisons because all of the other ones are "crowded" right. It won't reduce crime it will the money that is going towards these prisons and jails are just going to make the country go broke because of all of the fundings. Now if someone where to basically break the law and if they have a problem then they need to take that certain individual out of society because who knows what he or she might be capable of in the long run. Taking the criminal offenders off the streets is one thing but to arrest someone who maybe only broke the law once and giving them a harsh punishment is another thing. Maybe it is time for us to look further into depth about how to balance out the courts and to make sure the sentencing process is going how it is suppose to be going. GoodVibes003
ReplyDeleteThis video takes two theories that are both related to sentencing and corrections. The first theory is the just desert theory. This theory focuses on the just the individual committing the crime and his or her action. This theory does not look at the circumstances leading up to the crime or during the crime. The only focus is to have a just punishment for the individuals action. The second theory was the Retribution theory. Although this theory focuses only on the punishment of the individual, it is also after a just punishment that matches the crime committed by the individual. Out of the two of these theories to corrections retribution tends to be the more popular in society. This is due to many people wanting justice to be served and a equal punishment to the crime. The problem with both of these theories is that they give no room for change. The video states that $7 billion dollars is spent in the United States on prisons and keeping people locked up. This money can be spent on rehabilitation and keeping individuals out of the system and placing them back into society so that they may benefit. The video also discusses the deterrence theory. Many argue that to reduce crime the criminal justice system needs to maximize punishment to minimize crime. The down side to deterrence is that some people can simply not be deterred. An example is a peer pressure situation when an individual conforms and commits the act regardless of the punishment. Another problem is that most individuals will not acknowledge the punishment of the crime if they do not believe they will be punished in the first place. With deterrence there has to be a time restraint that makes sure criminals are sentences swiftly. If there is a time laps between the crime and the sentencing many individuals will not think about the punishment before they commit the crime. All of these theories have not been able to solve the corrections ever growing population. This is why rehabilitation has become so popular to the corrections system today. -Bulls003
ReplyDeleteI agree with both theories to an extent. The first part of the video mentioned that we spend $70 billion dollars and we want to invest it in a manner that we are reducing crime. Over the past year, we know that crime has actually reduced within the past year, but is that strictly from rehabilitation from being incarcerated. Also, both of the theories will agree that the punishment should fit the crime, which I too agree with. If someone get caught with a joint, and it's their first offense, while they're attending school, etc., I feel as though they should maybe just get a fine and maybe some community service or something. I know there are cases where these people are getting YEARS for petty offenses. Then I feel as though, yeah, they are going to come out possibly worse than they were when they came in for their petty offense. I also think that we should have more rehabilition programs and that they should actually be offered to people, because maybe we don't have enough programs, or maybe they aren't being offered.. Adding to that last statement, my step dad was an addict and he was offered, and attended, several different rehabilitation programs, but none of them worked until he actually wanted to stop and came to terms with the fact that he had a problem that needed to be attended too. I feel like that can also be an issue, that fact that maybe some of the people there don't want to be rehabilitated. I also remember learning about the study talked about in sociology and I thought that it was very interesting that we can put these people in these different roles and then they start acting as though they were actually that role. It makes me wonder if that is how people are once they are incarcerated, is that they take that role even after they get out. SCGC003
ReplyDeleteJust deserts makes a lot more sense when it comes to sentencing than most types of punishments handed down. Unfortunately just because its the easiest to hand out or maybe the most effective in some states doesn't mean it is the best option. Just as I explained in the other article an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Meaning doing the things that we are putting people away for is kind of redundant. If we were to the same thing such as kill, rape, ect. to the newly found criminals that they did before they were handed down their sentence is going to have a lot more negative affects with the people around them. And many times over when people receive this type of sentencing they are often not given the fairness they need. If a mother gets caught stealing food for her children do you feel like she should get the same amount of time in jail as the girl who stole her neighbors car? I honestly feel like yes under the court of law there should be some kind of punishment but it should also be caused by the person who committed the crime. Another example is a robber comes into your house and you shoot him do you feel like you should go to jail for 25 years such as any other murderer would? In Illinois if that robber posed no threat you have no right to kill them. Now I don't know about you but if someone comes into my house uninvited they're getting a whole bunch of lead their direction. And in this type of situation if your unlucky to get a deterrence type of sentencing you will go to prison for a long time and most likely come out a more of a criminal than from when you went in.
ReplyDelete-BikeMaker003
In the first part of the video he stated that the U.S. spends $70 billion annually on incarceration of prisoners. That is an astronomically high number to spend just on prisoners. The u.s. needs to invest this money on trying to rehabilitate more prisoners and to hopefully reduce crime. The stanford prison experiment was interesting. I learned about this in my criminal justice class at Eureka as well. I found it interesting that the guards became so violent towards the prisoners. It was interesting to note that the prisoners took the punishments as well and some even said they deserved to be punished. Now keep in mind this is a FAKE prison. None of the so called prisoners did anything to warrant imprisonment, but all the participants took the experiment down a dark road. In the past the views on the correctional system was very disapproving. The public honestly believed that nothing would work on rehabilitating the offender. In recent years, public opinion has started to shift, and well as the corrections attitude toward prisoners. There has been more rehabilitation in prisons recently, and the public approves of the rehabilitation.JE003
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you about 70 billion dollars. Because we should definitely not be spending that much money on jails, that's money that could be going towards our communities. If they used that much money on treatment facilities I think our incarceration numbers would be a lot better than what it is now. I remember watching that Stanford video in my CRJ 110 class at Aurora University. It was very interesting to see and understand their point of view. I kind of think in the past views on the correctional system was better the local police. Giving the fact of all those videos and stories, we watched and listened to.-K9003
DeleteI agree with the just desert theory. Some should only have a fair sentence based on the severity of the crime they committed.I don't think deterrence is really effective. We have all seen or heard of someone on probation who still smokes, or drinks and some how finds a way to cheat a test . If we keep letting people off easy they wont take the criminal justice system serious. However, over population in prisons is a serious issue. We cant afford to arrest everyone who has committed a crime, so i feel like we should focus on more serious crimes. chi003
ReplyDeleteEvery last one of the theories presented in this video was really eye opening. Because breaking down Just Deserts and Retribution, really makes a person wonder. Is this reason why our criminal justice system it messed up so bad?. He stated that the "U.S. spends over 70 billion dollars a year on incarcerations." That makes me wonder where the rest of the money going that we spend?. But that shows that our country doesn't let people off easy and that we care about our citizens safety.-K9003
ReplyDeleteI am so for rehabilitation! I do believe that we need to be tough on crime however, we need to look at background history and what they've been through before punishing I think that by doing that and helping them it might give them an advantage, especially seeing how living in poor neighborhoods and lack of education is reason for crime! It's so sad to know that in the criminal justice system we can't help people we lock them up through away the key and forget about them put them back into society and expect them to be okay. And with no rehabilitation and like we discussed in class for men for every hundred dollars,there's four dollars spent on rehabilitation and we wonder why recidivism is so high? I feel that if we look at the person look at the crime and try to help it will bring our prison population down,our jail population down,we need to help not just lock up throw away the key and forget about ! We are the future of criminal justice and we need to get together on this!! And come up with a plan to help rather than forget about ! It's so sad to go into juvenile detention center, and know that they much rather be there then go home..that just goes to show you we need to help neighborhoods rather than just going in full force and gusto police type attitude and locking them up MITHGTS003
ReplyDelete