Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice

Question: Discuss about the Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice. Answer: Introduction Punishment is considered as the most fundamental feature of every residential legal system. From the widespread disagreements that exist over moral principles ultimately results to punishments. But in several context, it has been proved again and again that every social institution have actually limited the level of punishment for every illegal activities. Punishment though is not considered to possess any kind of strict boundaries still it is found that punishment is considered as one of the most inclusive provincial of law (Andrews et al 2010).One of the useful ways to understand the central aspect of punishment is to identity the typical features of punishment and to popularly investigate how long their absence would lead one to speak out the fact that ultimately lead to punishment. Punishment in other context is determined as the practice that is performed and directed by different agents who has the sense of responsibility. For punishing an individual, an individual should alway s be able to make certain inflict over different harmful consequences which has already been committed by any individual for wrong activities. In this context, it is important to state that punishment involve different forms of harmful consequences which most people wishes to avoid or fall into the trap. The unlikeable outcomes of punishment are mainly found to pave the way of wrong doings. Sometimes the consequences of punishment do make a proper judgement of condemnation wherein the subject of punishment is blamed for committing a wrong thing (Beccaria 2009). For certain level of violation over different legal principles, at times condemnation could be totally absent irrespective of wrong doings that has taken place in formal sense. Some actions of punishment could be deemed as antisocial and it is completely worth of discouragement in perspective of unpleasant consequences. Condemnation is not totally considered as punishment because the society considers the punishment as formal condemnation whose acts are extremely shameful. The authority of punishment is totally imposed by people who already possess the power of to do so. The authority of punishment is totally conferred by legal rules and regulations that possess some associational standard or social morality. The authority of punishment could be totally envisaged. The most extra-vagant thought for punishing an individual is for some kind of actions that in reality does not have any reason to suppose. Misperception over punishment could also take place in case unconscious manipulation is made by those people who have committed. Different parts of civil law are mainly found to authorise different types of punitive outcomes authorised through the advanced legal systems (Garland 2012). Likewise, punishment for murder does involve different types of pain as well as deprivation. The intentional imposition over punishment always require proper justification and in this context, it is important to clearly sugge st that threatened punishment are not at all inflicted over those individuals who have really committed crimes like murder. If punishment for murder legally requires to be imposed its counterveiling reasons has to be taken into account. In case the actual punishment is followed by threatened punishment of the threat given has the maximum chances to lose its importance. Both murder as well as sexual assault is liable for death penalty as those are crimes listed under capital punishment. In simple words death penalty is determined as punishment given to an individual by making execution. The sentence to death penalty is mainly given by government or the state executives who poses a complete responsibility to look after the welfare of the state and its people. This decision to sentence for death of the individual who has committed this kind of serious crime like murdering any individual or sexually harassing the person is appropriate so that people become aware of the result from beforehand about the punishment they are likely to experience for committing such a crime and restricts themselves from doing so (Hart 2008). This would naturally decrease down the rate of individuals committing crimes and thus the chances of developing a better society would increase. Different policies and laws have been developed to deter crimes related to sexual harassmen t or murder based activities. With an increase on the severity of punishment criminal minded people who mainly have the attention to commit this type of crimes are able to know about the sanction made for those particular kinds of crimes and they restrict themselves in making a step forward (Schein et al 2010). It must be made sure that even if the individual is a complete defendant and has broken all the rules and principles of the state as well as federal law his punishment for the crime would be proportional to the level of crime committed by the individual. For example if an individual has committed in murder based criminal activities the individual should be simply given a death penalty and likewise if the person is notice to have done any kind of sexual harassment then as the punishment the sexual organ of the individual should be made out surgically (Sloane 2007). Thus for such a reason It is always necessary to look into the fact that punishment given to the individual should always fit the crime not the criminal. Through the model of punishing individuals according to the level of crime like murder of sexual harassment it is merely notice that offending is not at all based on the crime made by the offender separately rather, it helps in establishing a proper balance between the all communal groups reducing the chances of serious crimes in the society. Through the crime control model, it has been clearly defined that punishing the individual who has committed the crime should fit according to the illegal activities that he has carried out. This is because if crime is not dealt with general disregard of different rules and regulations it would lead to a decrease in the security as well as freedom of the society along with reduction in the level of freedom over the property rights (Stumpf 2009). Thus, this crime control model is mainly found to provide the society a assurance over personal and property liberty so that the rate of crimes like murder and sexual harassment could easily get reduced. The common law which has been developed long time before suggest that conduct of those individuals whose does not possess a mental capability of appreciating the wrongfulness of the act that he has already committed should always be excused. Offenders who are at the age group of seven and has been found to commit any kind of criminal activiti es should be hold as individuals who are totally incapable of committing crime. A new law developed in perspective of punishment over criminal activity suggest that any individual who has crossed the age of 16 rather than crossing the age limit of 18 should be given strict punishment as stated under the rule of law when is found to commit murder or sexual harassment (Andrews 2010). Although there are many people listed under the age of 18 is enlisted to have committed crime, previously as because punishment were not found to fit the criminal activities a report suggest that only about 854 individuals from about 16,000 murderers are notice have been sentenced to death penalty or has been forced to has been forced to make removal of their sexual organ. This issue is important to investigate because as an adult it would drastically throw effect over the severity of punishment (Beccaria 2009). In this context, it is essential to state that trying something as a minor simply means that the individual would receive punishment according to the criminal activity that the individual has committed. The level of fairness of the kind of punishment given to the individual who has committed crimes like murder or sexual harassment simply depends on making the right decisions about the idea on whether to make a try over the offender as an adult and at the same time, if a minor is found to commit crime like murder or other activities a judge in the court of law is found to involve in the decision making process by considering the minor either in the juvenile category or in the category of adult (Garland A judge while taking up a decision regarding the criminal offense that he should would be suggesting to the individual who has committed crimes like murder of sexual harassment should make sure to look into the circumstances staying in which the person has committed the crime or has got indulged into the criminal activity, this is because all the decision made by the judge is considered as the final decision and on that basis only the individuals would be entitled to punishment as per the criminal activity committed by him. If the crimes are very shocking like any murder or sexual nuisance if the individual falls into the juvenile category he has the opportunity to get release early. Therefore, from all the discussion made it is clear that punishment given to the individual should always fit the crime like for a murder it should be death penalty and for any kind of sexual nuisance it is should be something like removal of the sexual organ surgically (Hart 2008). Reference Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39. Beccaria, C. (2009). On crimes and punishments and other writings. University of Toronto Press. Dostoevsky, F. (2014). Crime and punishment. Penguin UK. Garland, D. (2012). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. University of Chicago Press. Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford University Press. Schein, M., Rogers, P. N., Assalia, A. (2010). General Philosophy. In Schein's Common Sense Emergency Abdominal Surgery (pp. 1-6). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Sloane, R. D. (2007). The Expressive Capacity of International Punishment: The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of International Criminal Law. Stan. J. Int'l L., 43, 39. Stumpf, J. (2009). Fitting punishment. Wash. Lee L. Rev., 66, 1683.