Criminal Justice Punishment is the application of a penalty
JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL MATTER
Student’s name, school affiliation, and course date are all required.
Justice in the Criminal Courts
Punishment is the imposition of a penalty on an individual by a government authority in response to a wrongdoing. Punishment is intended to defend social norms, protect society from harm, maintain the rule of law, and enforce social conformity, but it is primarily intended to modify the behavior of the individual. There are various types of punishments available depending on the jurisdiction of the rule of law that governs the specific social group in question and the severity of the crime that was perpetrated (Berk,2016). Depending on the social setting, punishment may be implied informally, or it may be implied formally in accordance with the systemic rule of law (see Figure 1). An enormous amount of investigation and study has been conducted, all with the goal of determining whether or not punishment is more effective than prevention and reward in achieving desired outcomes. This essay examines the use of electrical shocks as a form of corporal punishment, as well as the physical pain that they cause an individual.
The effects of corporal punishment on the modification of behavior have only received a cursory investigation in modern science. It has placed a strong emphasis on the consequences of rewards. The concept of corporal punishment has a negative connotation in contemporary society. Human rights activists have strongly condemned the use of corporal punishment, and psychologists have provided explanations for why it is used. All of this has been done in the hope of putting an end to this form of punishment. One question that has lingered in their minds is whether it is appropriate for a man to subject another to pain and suffering while upholding this under the principle of justice is appropriate.
It is possible to find an answer to this question in the penal law of Christianity or in the simple law of physics, which states that action equals reaction and that they both move in the opposite direction. All forms of nature, including humans, appear to be governed by this law, which appears to uphold punishment as an effective means of protecting society from the worst of human nature. Most governments around the world have their own penal codes, which primarily dictate that an offender be imprisoned, an act that seeks to debar punishment rather than to enforce it. The word “prison” originally referred to a place where offenders were detained indefinitely pending trial and hearing. Prisons played a less significant role in achieving criminal justice goals. Prison as a substitute for other forms of corporal punishment has had a negative impact on the government’s finances because the burden is being passed on to citizens through taxes. It has also had a negative impact on offenders because they are being excluded from opportunities and profitable economic activities as a result of the move.
Corporal punishment should be reinstated, according to law enforcement officials and the majority of the general public. The punishment of offenders will deter other men from committing similar offenses in the future. The pain experienced hurts the body and is inclined to the soul, which brings the offense committed into disrepute. We have seen numerous instances of people being fined only to find out later that they were involved in other crimes. This is due to the fact that the current criminal justice system appears to be more lenient, and as a result, people are less afraid to commit crimes.
Pain can be classified into two types: acute pain, which is temporary and less severe physical pain, and chronic pain, which is long-term and more severe physical pain. Acute pain can be used for both violent and property crimes, depending on the circumstances. It can be accomplished in a variety of ways, but the most advantageous, appropriate, and equitable method is the application of electric shock. The intensity and timing of the shock can be adjusted to match the severity of the crime committed, and it does not necessitate the removal of people from their social and natural environments, nor does it necessitate their confinement in one location and the suffering of their families. It also saves the government money and alleviates overcrowding in prisons, which are both positive outcomes.
Questions arise when comparing acute and chronic pain, such as which offenders should be punished with acute pain and which should be punished with chronic pain. The analogy necessitated the adoption of a reform proposal as a result of the comparison. According to Newman, the proposal seeks to distinguish between crimes and criminals, and it proposes chronic pain for heinous and repeat offenders, which includes both physical pain and imprisonment. At the same time, minor offenses should be subjected to severe punishment. It is necessary, however, to distinguish corporal punishment from torture, because the latter is illegal and constitutes a grave violation of even criminals’ rights, as well as their own. Because corporal punishment does not cause long-term harm to the body, it cannot be classified as torture under international law.
Once upon a time, a well-known London judge argued that long sentences of imprisonment did little to alter the behavior of criminals. In fact, the violent nature of prisons encouraged inmates to engage in worse behavior, whereas hardcore criminals felt right at home in prison. The idleness and monotony of prison will drag behind the hardworking inmates, while the hardened ones will join organized gangs to make a living. In terms of rehabilitating inmates, incarceration is extremely ineffective. The “rod,” on the other hand, is something that every man dreads. Whether it is whipping or the application of electrical shock, it has an intrinsic and logical repercussion on the person who has done wrong, making him better than worse. Because of this, pain is an essential component of effective punishment and the deterrent effect of punishment.
Towards the end of the 18th century, both the United States and Great Britain had incorporated corporal punishment into the process of prosecuting criminals. The United States later abolished it as a result of a congressional act, but the United Kingdom continued to uphold it. Following the introduction of the whip in Maryland in 1882, there was a significant decrease in the number of cases of domestic violence. The number of reported cases of domestic violence had been increasing, prompting the authorities to institute the whip. In a year, the number of cases involving the implementation of laws dropped by more than half, and the number of cases eventually dwindled (Bach,2017). The modifications demonstrate how men dread the whip. It causes a convict much social degrading treatment when he is publicly flogged, as well as physical pain, which is far worse than imprisonment.
While the concept of imprisonment should not be dismissed out of hand, it is necessary to consider the consequences of both. As a result, offenders who commit petty crimes should not be incarcerated alongside repeat or hardcore criminals due to a lack of bail. The use of electric shocks has proven to be the most effective method of punishing such crimes time and time again. Technicians can adjust the intensity of these shocks to inflict pain on an offender while preventing permanent damage to their body. Preventative measures such as probation are ineffective, particularly for the offended groups and individuals, and they do nothing to demonstrate that justice has been carried out. Bail would be ineffective in preventing the repetition of offenses, but the pain would be just as potent a deterrent.
While pain communicates to the offender the nature of his or her wrongdoing, prison only serves to demonstrate the seriousness of the crimes committed (Hyatt, 2015). Crimes that cause only minor harm to the offender should be met with swift and severe punishment. However, serious crimes should be punished equally and with long-term consequences such as pain and imprisonment to ensure that the offender suffers the same amount of pain and suffering that was caused by his or her actions on the part of the victim.
With the advancement of human civilization and modernization, there have been an increasing number of oppositions to corporal punishment in recent years (Mazur,2013). Some claim it is too painful, while others simply object to it on the grounds that it causes bodily harm to the person who committed the crime. These arguments raise two points of contention: the severity of the punishment and the method of punishment. It is important to note that focusing solely on the extreme when attempting to object to or justify corporal punishment can be deceptive and misleading. As an example, consider a situation in which someone is electrically shocked, resulting in severe or permanent bodily harm. We would be ignoring the question of whether or not less severe corporal punishment can be justified in certain circumstances. It is also important to consider which offenses are punishable under the law. Examples include the punishment of 1,000 lashes of the whip meted out by the Saudi Arabian government to a blogger who expressed himself as a human rights activist on his blog (Hamilton,2016). This punishment was severe and unconstitutional because it infringed on the blogger’s right to freedom of expression.
In the final analysis, corporal punishment has a number of advantages over incarceration in terms of time and financial impact. Incarceration is an expensive affair that costs an estimated $ 30,000 per year for a single inmate. This fiscal burden on the government is passed on to citizens through taxes. It is also time-consuming since every inmate has to serve their sentence. Corporal punishment is cheap and takes less time. As much as cost is not a priority in determining the punishment method, the capital involved could be used for better projects; hence, it is an essential factor to consider.
Prison is not enough to bring out the desired results since most of this correctional lack plan and purpose. It is destructive and degrades our values since it does not reflect our accurate degree of civilization. There is a need for a well-outlined legal framework that will guide us in deciding which cases require incarceration and which ones can be sentenced for corporal punishment to prevent prisons from being overwhelmed and help in meting fair punishment to the incarcerated ones and rehabilitate them to future good citizens. Punishment is aimed at reducing the crime rate, but our prisons have not achieved that today. They have lacked target in crime control by relying on the incapacitation theory, which states that criminals should be incarcerated for crimes they would have committed in the future.
There have been numerous arguments globally on this topic. The vast majority are the ones who object to corporal punishment as compared to imprisonment or incarceration. However, their objections are negligible since they are one-sided and focus on the extremes. For example, those who term corporal punishment as violent and vicious fail to realize that prisons are much worse in this. Once an offender is incarcerated, they are exposed to such vices aforementioned while in reality; corporal punishment is carried out per the rule of law. Public opinion has played a significant role in this. If only we were to stand with the altruistic position that the duty to educate the naïve and reform the ferocious relies on the right to punish.
In conclusion, our criminal justice system needs to be reviewed. Theory needs to be compared with experience, perceptions with facts. In reducing overcrowding and making prisons effective in the administration of just punishment and rehabilitation, there is a need to re-introduce corporal punishment in our criminal justice. Since time immemorial, it has proved to be effective in serving justice to the offended. At the same time, to the offender, it is a sure way to inflict pain according to the degree of crime committed, thus preventing a future repetition of the same offenses and amend their misdeed. It is essential to be open-minded in the process not to miss any mark or go overboard in reinstating the same. There are laws and statutes as well as amendments that can offer proper guidance in achieving this.
Mazur, J. E. (2013). Learning and behavior (7th ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press
Berk, R. A. 2016b. “A Primer on Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments.” The Criminologist 4
Hyatt, J.. 2015. “Machine Learning Forecasts of Risk to Inform Sentencing Decisions.” The Federal Sentencing Reporter 27(4):222–228.
Hamilton, M. 2016. “Risk-needs Assessment: Constitutional and Ethical Challenges.” American Criminal Law Review 52(2):231–292.
Bach, D. R. (2017). The cognitive architecture of anxiety-like behavioral inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 18-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000282