Description
Retribution is the belief that offenders should be punished by inflicting the same amount of pain on the offender as was inflicted onto the victim. Rehabilitation is the belief that social, spiritual, and biological influences should be addressed for each offender to make him or her a productive member of society. In this assignment, it is your responsibility to prepare an analysis of 5–7 pages on the arguments for treatment or punishment of offenders in dealing with the social problem of crime. Assignment Guidelines: • Address the following in your analysis of 5–7 pages on the different rationales for various treatments and punishments. ◦What are 3 specific differences between the arguments for rehabilitation and retribution? Explain. ◦What are 3 specific similarities between the arguments for rehabilitation and retribution? Explain. ◦Examine 2 of the social arguments used to support both positions. ◦What are 3 specific philosophical or social issues that could be used to support your analysis? ◦Your analysis must contain at least 4 references using APA style. •Compile your findings, analysis, and references into a Word document of 5–7 pages, and submit the file to your instructor. Please submit your assignment. For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.
Explanation & Answer
Here you go. In case of any further inputs, please let me know.All the best!I appreciate working with you!
Running head: DEFINING JUSTICE
1
Defining Justice
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
DEFINING JUSTICE
2
Defining justice
Introduction
An eye for an eye makes both parties blind. The sphere of retribution is an archaic
phenomenon that falls short of dispensing with justice. It has been defined world over as a
punitive measure taken against someone in revenge for a crime he committed against another
person. Proponents of the desert argue that meting out retribution is merely restoring the balance
of nature since every act must attract an equal and opposite reaction. They insist that so long as
the punishment dispensed is proportional to the harm caused by the crime; then justice shall have
been served.
The second school of thought emanates from a set of scholars who view retribution as
barbaric and inconsequential, arguing that revenge does not undo a crime and neither does it
assist the delinquent in charting a way forward. They rightly believe that crime must be met with
a transformative approach, with its proponents being eased back into society (Cullen & Jonson,
2014). The society, in this model of dealing with crime, is tasked with reaping the productivity of
the individual at the tail end of a justice cycle. This model refers to rehabilitation, which in
essence involves the restoration of the individual to his former condition or status, the
assumption being that nobody is born a criminal.
Most importantly, the following analysis evaluates the arguments fronted in support of
both rehabilitation and retribution, veering into the merits of comparing some similarities the
reaction to crime present. Further, it values the differences presented by the phenomena before
looking into the respective segments individually. Finally, a discussion ensues on some social
DEFINING JUSTICE
3
issues that portray an embodiment of either of the schools of thought, before culminating into the
concluding part of the debate.
Similarities between rehabilitation and retribution
Rehabilitation and...
Review
Review
