Retributive Justice Essay Example

Retributive justice is an inflicting kind of truth which believes in taking the law into your own hands by seeking revenge, 'you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Bible, Source Reader p.52)

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Retributive justice is a very backward way of dealing with crimes since in my view it doesn't offer a solution for the society, but only it would cause more hatred amongst one another. The people in the community who have been identified because of their hard vengeance ways are the only one who will be safe while the innocent and peace-loving individuals will be the most scared around since anyone can pick up a fight with them and they won't fight back vigorously. Just like the Greeks tradition, I believe in finding a way in which there will be a balance of interests, rights, and power to handle how to tackle crimes in the society.

By the continued use of the 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' kind of system, people will only fear to commit crimes, not because they know why they are not supposed to engage but just because of the fear they don't want the same thing to be done to them. This can be negative because when they know they won't be able to be identified for the crime, they will go ahead and commit it. But when the community has been educated on the effects and reason why crimes will make them luge behind as a community here, we will see real fruits that s actual reduction in crime.

Some people will also reason that most of the offenders have been educated and given lengthy talks on the effects of crimes in the society and hence should not be felt mercy when they are found committing such crimes, therefore, the retributive justice should be done to them but I believe if its done to them they will only become more ruthless hence find a way to cover their tracts and if they notice you have identified them, they will harm you unto a point of death so that you can't be able to go and report them.

That's why I second disablement style where, when one is found having committed a crime they will take the criminal to court and have them confined in an area where they won't be able to determine that crime or another or even introduce them in a rehabilitation centre where they will also be taught other skills so that they may not depend on offense as their source of income and by so doing the deterrence will make potential criminals fear to face the face of their predecessors hence not think of entering into crime as from their early stages in life.

The Law of Moses 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' can conflict with the American society where they presume everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law when the offender has been captured even by surveillance camera but nothing is being done since he denies the allegations or there are witnesses to his crime but are afraid to come forward he will see the person been let out free but later the public will take law into their hands and deal with the offender in the best way they think fit for him.

For one to know a crime has been committed, there must be the victim who most likely will be the one to go and file a report to the relevant bodies be it a police station or any other place their complaint will be handled from. The victim will have to have some evidence that supports the claim they are filing that actually they have been offended and that legal action should start immediately in search other the criminal offenders and their apprehension upon them been captured by the police.

The offenders captured should be kept in a cell until their time to go to court arrives. Here they will be given the privileged to make phone calls to either their family members or even a lawyer to come and represent them. The offender, when taken to court, may admit they are guilty of the crime they have been accused of committing or may want to gamble their options and refuse the offense, hence his defence team (lawyer/s) who we see according to James S. Kunen in the making of a criminal lawyer believes that some of these people been prosecuted are innocent and not as bad as the public thinks, will take it as their work to fight against evidence brought forward by the victim and the more which have been collected by the people investigating the case.

Hence the judge will be the last person to speak his view and give out judgment,as we can see it in Hazard Geoffrey, Ethics and practice of law, 1970, after he has given both the prosecutor's team and defense team an opportunity to express their facts and arguments in the court. If the judge finds the offender guilty he will prosecute him or other give out his punishment. If the offender feels the judge has been too harsh in his ruling, he may decide to appeal the verdict and let another judge decide his fate or agree and go with the decision of the first judge.

The society shouldn't be so fast in judging people but should first listen to both parties, and if the guilty party is so evident that they committed the crime, they should look at it if they wanted it to happen, or it was a mistake which is inevitable to human beings or even if they are of mental sound then after considering these things know how and where to take the offender to be it a mental institution or police station, but they shouldn't take matters in their hands and punish the offenders.

If a victim or a relative of a crime such as rape, robbery with violence, etc. I would love the police to be very harsh to the offender so that it can discourage other people with the same mind from doing it. Even if the offender were my relative, I would like such harsh measures taken on them so that they can reform their ways and not bring shame and lousy reputation onto our family

References

Bible source reader page 52

Thomas Hobbes, Early in the Leviathan,1651James S.Kunene,' How can you defend those people' making of a criminal lawyer,1983

Hazard, Geoffrey. Ethics and the practice of law,1979