Before we address the issues of Criminal Punishment let’s first take a look at what is Criminal Punishment: (1) it could be defined as a punishment awarded to an individual who has performed some kind of misconduct, or (2) imposition of something undesirable or unpleasant on a person not in the same fashion as the crime committed but something so unpleasant that it will deter that criminal or others from committing that crime. In order for punishment to be awarded it must be imposed from someone with authority to impose punishment if not then it could be looked at as a form of retaliation. If a crime is to be imposed to it must consist of the following elements: - The punishment must be unpleasant. - It must be for and offender. - It must be for an offense. - It must not be the natural consequences of an action. It has been debated by lawmakers for years are Criminal Punishment justifiable and does it deter other criminal from performing such criminal acts. According to utilitarian philosopher Bentham feels that deterrence is justified only if the harm that it prevents is greater than the harm inflicted. (Banks, 2013). Also, to help criminal become more model citizen and not to commit these crimes again the legal system has set up these to help in the rehabilitation of criminals prior to returning them back into society.: According to the American Heritage Dictionary, here are the definitions of the following: - Incapacitation – Deprive them of their strength are ability. - Rehabilitation – To restore to good life through education and therapy. - Retribution – Something demanded for repayment…simply put “and Eye for and Eye”. While we want to impose punishment on individual’s who commits crimes we need to ask the following questions prior to imposing punishment: - Do the individual deserve to be punished? - Will the punishment prevent future crimes by this individual or others? - How will this punishment of crime protect other citizens - Will punishing this individual or group send a message to other citizens that are laws are being upheld. My thoughs on criminal punishment is that; I can't say one way or the other if any of the above criteria work but we still need to have some form of punishment in place to ensure that punishment is still being awarded at least to that individual who commits a crime. If we don't instill some form of punishment then our society will start to take matters into thier own hands. I think if a person has already pre-planned to commit a violent crime that would warrant such a harsh punishment then they already know what the outcome is going to be when caught, and may be ready to face that punishment. Also, I don’t feel harshly punishing others will prevent others from committing a harsh crime. To me these types of people already have some type of chemical imbalance that allows them to commit such a crime, so they will not be deterred by any means of punishment. My question to you all is: 1) Do you feel deterrence is justifiable and effective? 2) Do you believe in the “Eye for and Eye” deterrence method? 3) What should be the ultimate goal of punishment? Reference: Banks, C (2013), Criminal Justics Ethis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage