Justification And Justification Of The Penal System

Punishment in general can obviously be justified (in the traditional sense of the term) on utilitarian grounds. Nevertheless, usually its justification is not asked for. Because justification of punishment, in general is unnecessary. It is the justification of particular infliction of pain (or punishment) that can be enquired of. As a man can legitimately ask for justification of a particular law of a state. However, nobody enquires of the justification of legal system or of law in general. It is meaningful to ask, Can this rule be justified? Or Are not those laws justifiable? But it is not worthwhile rather it is absurd to ask, Can law (in general) be justified? Similarly, punishment in general or penal system requires no†¦show more content†¦Retribution assigns a punishment that is appropriate to the crime, which is ideal in punishing criminals whereas general deterrence works to persuade society to obey the law, and specific deterrence work. From the variety of utilit arian justifications of punishment, retribution is the most convincing as its theoretical goals are sustained through societies, whereas general and specific deterrence cannot be justified on their own, as they do not match with retribution. For retributionists, punishment is backward looking, justified by the crime that has been committed and carried out to atone for the damage already done. Retributivism covers all theories that justify punishment because the offender deserves it. This is interpreted in two ways, either a person must be punished because they deserve it (deserving is a sufficient reason for punishment), or a person must not be punished unless they deserve it (deserving is a necessary but not sufficient condition for punishment). There are two distinct types of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence. Many strands of retrivbutism including Lex Talionis which seeks to restore the balance between offender and victim. The third is in accordance with the grievance principle; that