Consequentialist And Non-Retribution Theory Essay
Week 7
1. According to Duff and Garland, what are the central differences between ‘consequentialist’ and ‘non-consequentialist’ (often referred to as ‘retributivist’) theories of punishment?
Consequentialists believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the overall consequence of that act, where punishment should serve to promote good, contributing to crime prevention or societal welfare.
On the other hand, a non-consequentialist believes that an act is either intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, independent of its consequence. Hence, punishment should instead serve as a form of retribution such that only the guilty should be punished accordingly, where he or she is inflicted the same harm or suffering that they deserve. …show more content…
The legal practices and interpretation take place in a social setting, where the criminal laws are a result of the political processes detailing to their enforcement. Hence, these justice practices of criminal law scholars co-exist and complement the moral and social aspect of criminology studied by criminologists.
3. What, in your view, are the most significant challenges in defining criminality? Draw on the readings and lectures to support your answer.
In my opinion, the most significant challenges in defining criminality are to determine what it encompasses and the function it should serve. These would then give rise to differing views on what functions punishment should serve and which form of punishment would best serve its purpose. As mentioned by Lacey and Zedner, not all social harms are dealt with by criminal law, where some acts that are equally damaging to society are not classified as a crime (Hillyard al et. 2004). Moreover, the definition of criminality also hinges on the social, religious and and moral precepts of the society (Lacey, 1995), hence there might not be a universal definition to criminality, giving rise to ambiguities in assessing crimes and defining criminality
1. According to Duff and Garland, what are the central differences between ‘consequentialist’ and ‘non-consequentialist’ (often referred to as ‘retributivist’) theories of punishment?
Consequentialists believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the overall consequence of that act, where punishment should serve to promote good, contributing to crime prevention or societal welfare.
On the other hand, a non-consequentialist believes that an act is either intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, independent of its consequence. Hence, punishment should instead serve as a form of retribution such that only the guilty should be punished accordingly, where he or she is inflicted the same harm or suffering that they deserve. …show more content…
The legal practices and interpretation take place in a social setting, where the criminal laws are a result of the political processes detailing to their enforcement. Hence, these justice practices of criminal law scholars co-exist and complement the moral and social aspect of criminology studied by criminologists.
3. What, in your view, are the most significant challenges in defining criminality? Draw on the readings and lectures to support your answer.
In my opinion, the most significant challenges in defining criminality are to determine what it encompasses and the function it should serve. These would then give rise to differing views on what functions punishment should serve and which form of punishment would best serve its purpose. As mentioned by Lacey and Zedner, not all social harms are dealt with by criminal law, where some acts that are equally damaging to society are not classified as a crime (Hillyard al et. 2004). Moreover, the definition of criminality also hinges on the social, religious and and moral precepts of the society (Lacey, 1995), hence there might not be a universal definition to criminality, giving rise to ambiguities in assessing crimes and defining criminality