DB Replies Week 2

Punishment philosophy is to make people reluctant to a commit crime by making the lives of offenders uncomfortable causing a reduction of the chances for future criminality (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2021). The goal of this punishment is deterrence. The punishment must be severe enough to scare people from committing a crime in the first place and to make the gains from the crime not worth the punishment received. This punishment philosophy could also incorporate incapacitation at the goal. The thought of being taken out of society to protect the citizens may deter people from committing crimes altogether.

The philosophies of punishment examine why and how a crime should be punished. It is suggested that criminal punishment maintains and defends the social order (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2021). One punishment philosophy is the idea that the sentence should get back at the offender. This philosophy incorporates revenge, retribution, and just desserts as the goals for the punishment. This is because the purpose of revenge, retribution, and just desserts is to restore the balance between the offender, victim, and society. Revenge and retribution are emotional responses to being victimized, and just desserts is a moral response to being the victim of a crime (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2021).

Offering education and/or psychological treatment is another punishment philosophy. This philosophy has the goals of rehabilitation, reformation, and restoration. Educating offenders on acceptable behavior patterns and how to appropriately behave and treating the offender for psychological issues is meant to stop people from reoffending (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2021). If the offender is educated on the harm they caused to the victim, and if the psychological problem behind the cause of the offense is treated, the human relationship between the offender and victim can be restored.

My preferred method of punishment is a sentence with the goal of restoration because it attempts to repair the harm done to the victim and the community, at the same time, it has the offender actively address the harm they have caused (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2021). In these cases, I believe intermediate sanctions can be effective in achieving this goal because the offender gets an appropriate sentence depending on the severity of the crime that was committed as well as a chance to do community service to provide for the community. In my opinion, Intermediate sanctions with the goal of restoration fair to all parties involved.

North Carolina utilizes the philosophy of state-sanctioned retribution with intermediate sanctions (Freeman, 2000). The state began using more intermediate sanctions due to a sharply increasing prison population. The states use of retribution aligns with the Biblical goal of corrections as described in Leviticus 24:19 through 24:21, “If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.”