Lacey and Pickard (2015) analyze the effectiveness of punishment in criminal justice and assess whether it is relevant in the justice setting. The paper assesses the relevance of punishment because of crime committed. The paper assesses the effect of crime and realizes that the system looks at punishment as a way of accountability for crimes committed. The paper assesses the aspects of crime that relate to the aspect of blame rather than forgiveness for offenses committed (Lacey&Pickard, 2015). Therefore, it realizes that instead of repairing, the criminal justice system actually ruptures. The argument concerns the fact that the criminal justice often fails to restore participants to be fully participative members of the society again. Lacey and Pickard (2015) suggest that the justice model views punishment as the imposition of retaliatory costs and hard treatment as a result of blameworthiness. It insinuates that punishment can therefore be viewed as an institutionalized form of forgiveness for crimes committed.
The paper explains the fact that the criminal law offers forgiveness through punishment in its own right. The paper understands the significance of punishment as a means of the criminal process executing justice. However, an analysis of clinical practice reveals that it is only possible for a person to change their own course of behavior voluntarily and through one’s own control (Lacey&Pickard, 2015). Therefore, the article reveals that the criminal justice system should instead encourage and motivate rather than punish. Lacey and Pickard suggest that mercy should play a larger role in sentencing and they believe that it can possibly be done within the court systems. The article concludes by mentioning the fact that the criminal justice system will need to be reformed before sentencing processes damage rather than repair the condition of sentences individuals. The reading is concerned with the validity of the punishment methods for sentencing individuals.
The article examines the possibility of the choice to blame rather than to forgive perpetrators. It realizes the necessity of respect and equality and believes that the perpetrators should be given another chance. A concept that has been brought out in the paper is the fact that it is necessary to replace the blame with forgiveness as a way of changing the criminal justice policy. It states the fact that punishment should in fact be recognized as a state of institutionalized forgiveness (Lacey&Pickard, 2015). The paper explores the need for revising criminal justice to move away from retribution and more towards the rehabilitation of the perpetrators. The concept explained is that the criminal justice system can be designed to embody reparative strategies and solutions. The article reveals the fact that the law usually functions of assessing transgressions and condemning transgressors using institutional processes. Lacey and Pickard therefore suggest a revision of the criminal justice system to ensure the fact that criminals are given a chance to fully reform.
Another aspect that the paper covers is the act of forgiveness under the criminal justice feeling. It recognizes that this is completely difficult since involves overcoming hostile tendencies as well as the blame placed on the perpetrator. It examines the possibility of forgiveness within the courtrooms as well as criminal justice institutions. It suggests the use of reconciliation as an avenue of channeling forgiveness in the justice system (Lacey&Pickard, 2015). One has to consider that many offenses are victimless and others occur in victims who are unaware of their victimization. The article therefore suggests replacing non-forgiving practices with practices which offer rehabilitation as well as restoration to the victim. The task of criminal justice is seen as one that is not to punish, but rather to forgive the perpetrator. It assesses the instrumental as well as ethical reasons for adopting reconciliation as a form of punishment for perpetrators.
Lin, Dahl, and Argo argue differently and they believe that social order can successfully be restored through punishing violators. The article begins by stressing the significance of social order and the proper functioning of the society. It furthermore links social order with punishment and looks to investigate the connection between the two. It realizes the fact that people often prefer equilibrium in social order and a balanced state of affairs. The paper goes ahead and research the effect of punishment as punitive measure rather than an operative purpose (Lin, Dahl&Argo, 2012). It realizes that punishing offenders is necessary in meeting the requirements of the social order. The hypothesis was carried out across four empirical studies and it looks at the contrast between the norm violations as well as non-violation conditions. The research includes a study performed on 67 undergraduates from the University of British Columbia and it assessed the occurrence of norm violation versus third party order restoration as well as control.
The results of the experiment revealed the fact that punishment was a dichotomous variable and according to the results, the effects of norm violation as well as third party order restoration were not significant. The participants revealed the fact that they were less likely to punish the norm violator as opposed to not punish the perpetrator. So long as social order was restored, punishment was not seen as a necessary occurrence (Lin, Dahl&Argo, 2012). The second study carried out examined how the experience of the norm violator would have a significant effect on the attitude towards the punishment of the norm violator. The decision therefore to mitigate the level of punishment would therefore facilitate a balance in achieving social order in this particular circumstance. The results from the second study reveal the fact that when a norm violation was present, then the participants mitigated the level of punishment that was delivered to the norm violator. The second part of the second study was carried out on 160 female graduates.
The results of the first and second part also revealed the fact that the level of punishment that was delivered by participants was significantly lower than that which the violator had previously experienced. The final study examined whether the status of the norm violator would have an effect on the level of punishment realized. The results revealed that most people were willing to excuse a violator of higher status since less punishment would be required to balance the social order of such a perpetrator (Lin, Dahl &Argo, 2012). Another study was done on 45 business students and this study was done to understand the effect of punishment. It determines the fact that punishment has been viewed as many as an effective means to achieving social order. The research carried out brings new insights into criminal justice as it reveals the different ways in which punishment is actually viewed. However, there were limitations to the research, especially concerning the connections between the manipulations and the independent measures of interest.
It was also questionable as to whether the perception of the participants towards punishment was varied. It was asked whether this perception was sufficient in achieving social order. Lin, Dahl, and Argo have therefore sought to prove the fact that social order can in fact be restored through punishment of individuals. The research also explores the characteristics as to how the Punisher can in fact affect the punishment decision. It concludes by realizing the fact that punishment is actually perceived in different ways in different cultures and therefore needs to be addressed in these ways (Lin, Dahl &Argo, 2012). The process of punishment has been explained in this article as a necessary process of restoring social order and has been viewed as necessary. The second article contrasts with the first one, which clearly believes that the rules of criminal justice have to be reviewed. The second article advocates for punishment since it believes that it restores social order and enhances social balance.
- Burton Jr, V. S., Fisher, C. M., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2014). Confronting the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction: A special challenge for social work with offenders. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 4(2), 80-103.
- Karp, D. R., & Frank, O. (2016). Restorative justice and student development in higher education: Expanding “offender” horizons beyond punishment and rehabilitation to community engagement and personal growth. Offenders no more: An interdisciplinary restorative justice dialogue, 141-164
- Lacey, N., & Pickard, H. (2015). To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice. Oxford Journal Of Legal Studies, 35(4), 665-696. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqv012
- Lambourne, W. (2016). 4 Restorative justice and reconciliation. Restorative Justice in Transitional Settings, 56.
- Lin, L., Dahl, D., & Argo, J. (2013). Do the Crime, Always Do the Time? Insights into Consumer-to-Consumer Punishment Decisions. Journal Of Consumer Research, 40(1), 64-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668641
- McNeill, F. (2014). Punishment as rehabilitation.
- Mears, D. P., Pickett, J. T., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: Assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of quantitative criminology, 31(3), 459-479.
- Tyler, T., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice.
- Whitehead, P. (2016). Theorising religion, crime and the system of criminal justice: A moral economy perspective. In Religion, Faith and Crime (pp. 113-134). Palgrave Macmillan UK
- Worrall, A., & Corcoran, M. (2015). Integrated Offender Management: A microcosm of central and local criminal justice policy turbulence. In The Management of Change in Criminal Justice (pp. 259-274). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
