Rehab vs Retribution Essay

I negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system. The value for this round will be: justice, where everyone gets what they are due. In order to provide a criterion for which to judge the value, as well as a way to achieve my value, the value- criteria shall be: retribution, where the punishment of an individual is more often than not weighted by the gravity of the crime that they committed. This is not to say that the justice system is justified in putting our criminals through excruciating torture and interrogations in order to ensure that they never commit a crime out of fear. However, this means that retribution makes more sense than rehabilitation and thus should not be valued less than rehab. Note: By negating, I can say that retribution is just as valuable as rehab, just not less valuable? Contention One: The retribution system only serves criminals what they are due in return for th eir actions. A: Retribution is not the same as revenge. Background and context The criminal justice system comprises many distinct stages, including arrest, prosecution, trial, sentencing, and punishment (quite often in the form of imprisonment). As will become clear, it is in the last two of these many stages that the debate over rehabilitation and retribution is of special significance. It is a very serious mistake to think that the retributive ideal in the criminal justice system is about vengeance, retaliation or payback. Rather, it is an extremely sophisticated idea that often forms the basis of, and arguably is even the leading indication of, a developed sentencing system. The term ‘retribution’ is therefore unfortunate because its everyday meaning connotes ‘revenge’; it is better described as ‘desert’, ‘just deserts’ or ‘proportionality’ theory. The debate between rehabilitation and ‘retribution’ involves two broad questions: ideologically, which is the more satisfactory justif ication for punishment; and practically, which can serve as a more useful guide for sentences and other agents in the criminal justice system? B: RETRIBUTIVE IS NOT THE SAME AS REVENGE Pojman, 04: Louis P. Pojman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at West Point Military Academy, in an essay titled â€Å"Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible,† from Adam Bedaus’ 2004 book titled Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case, wrote: â€Å"People often confuse retribution with revenge†¦ Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime†¦ Retribution is not based on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may accompany the punishment). Retribution is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply regret having to carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted. When a society fails to punish criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands, resulting in vigilante justice, lynch mobs, and private acts of retribution. The outcome is likely to be an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice.† http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001004 When you are a little kid, your mother most likely put you in time-out when you did something wrong. We have been taught all our lives, then, that there is a consequence for every action, whether that action is moral or immoral, conformed to the guidelines of society or looked down upon by society. Teenage life and adult life is no different- people must be made aware of effects that what they do have on other people. Retribution is the answer. B: Retribution restores justice. RETRIBUTION REQUIRES ONLY THE RESTORATION OF JUSTICE Budziszewski, 04: J. Budziszewski, PhD, Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, in an Aug./Sep. 2004 OrthodoxyToday.org article titled â€Å"Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice,† wrote: â€Å"Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good†¦ Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such. The reasons for saying so are threefold. First, just punishment is not something which might or might not requite evil; requital is simply what it is. Second, without just punishment evil cannot be requited. Third, just punishment requires no warrant beyond requiting evil, for the restoration of justice is good in itself†¦ For these reasons, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution: they are secondary†¦Ã¢â‚¬  http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001004 Contention Two: Retribution helps deter crime. Barton, 99: Empowerment and Retribution in Criminal and Restorative Justice, Professional Ethics, A Multidisciplinary Journal. Volume 7, Issue 3/4, Fall/Winter 1999, 28   Selected Papers from the 1999 Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Charles Barton, Pages 111-135 Restorative justice critiques of the status quo in criminal justice often miss their mark because of the mistaken belief that current practice in criminal justice is essentially, or predominantly, retributive. What is being overlooked is that restorative justice responses often contain retributive and punitive elements themselves – and sometimes, such as in serious cases, necessarily so. (Barton 1999, Ch. 10) Therefore, blaming retribution, or even punitiveness, for the ills of the criminal justice system is largely beside the point. Punishment and retribution cannot be ruled out by any system of justice. By implication, a more plausible critique of the status quo is needed†¦ More generally, even if the threat of punishment is no longer a deterrent to a relatively small number of repeat offenders, that does not mean that the prospect of punishment, such as imprisonment, for instance, is not a deterrent to the majority of people who otherwise might be more tempted to break the law and violate the rights of others in pursuit of their own goals and interests. At best, the evidence on this point is inconclusive, but the phenomenon of sharp increases in mindless vandalism, looting, and violence by otherwise law abiding citizens when they feel that they can get away with it, should cause us to re-think the wisdom of rejecting punishment altogether. Contention Three: Victims must be taken into consideration; present and future If victims feel that justice has not been served, then self help will be sought out, putting more people in danger and increasing the overall crime rate. SELF HELP IS SOUGHT OUT WHEN â€Å"DESERVED† PUNISHMENT IS NOT ENACTED In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the US Supreme Court in a 7 – 2 decision written by Justice Potter Stewart, JD, stated: Gregg v. Georgia, 1976: â€Å"The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly 66boffensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes, rather than self-help, to vindicate their wrongs†¦ The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they ‘deserve,’ then there are sown the seeds of anarchy — of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.† http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001004 Although the general public is not in a position to determine the fate of every single incarcerated person there is in the U.S., their interests must still be taken into account when attackers and abusers are put in to prison.