“...Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered”

Leviticus 19:21

It is an acceptable agreement that crime should be punished, but the question is:
What is the justification for punishment?

CRIME, LAW AND PUNISHMENT

IS BREAKING A LAW ALWAYS A CRIME?

The concept of crime goes hand in hand with that of law.
However, is it always a crime to break the law?

Does acting in a way that is contrary to a law always regard as a crime?

Sometimes it may seem necessary to break a law in order to discharge or fulfil an urgent duty.

I.e when saving a life.

In a criminal proceeding, a criminal responsibility that leads to a liability to punishment - requires not just a ‘guilty act’ but also a ‘guilty mind’ too.

THE ARGUMENT IS THIS...

One will often escape criminal responsibility, and hence punishment, if and only if...

It can be proven that the act was committed ‘unintentionally’ or that the person lacked ‘sufficient rational capacity’ to understand fully what they were doing.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the person has to be considered ‘capable’ of knowing what one was doing or the ‘action’ one was involved with.

For this reason, children 👶 below a certain age, and the insane (mentally unstable) normally escape criminal punishment.

So the concept of ‘criminal responsibility’ seems to be based on the notion of ‘moral responsibility ‘

Can a person escape both moral and legal responsibility in a criminal punishment proceeding?

THE ANSWER IS YES

IN CASES OF DURESS

If a person is overcome by fear or provocation, perhaps of torture,resulting in a loss of self-control - this could lead to a partial defence.

People may have the tendency to follow or respect the law but doing so will have a catastrophic ramifications and the most rational or logical answer may be to break the law.

Consider a mother who only can feed her children by stealing. It is illegal but excusable.

It is morally justified as a breach of a law, but it is still excusable.

THREE MAIN APPROACHES TO PUNISHMENT ARE:

• Deterrence
• Reform
• Retribution

The retributive theory of punishment is a backward driven concept and always applies in a backward driven society.

A crime has been committed and a reasonable punishment must be found to fit the crime.

DETERRENCE

The concept of deterrence is to deter people from committing criminal activities. Sometimes showing a penalty will have this effect. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Can cutting off the hand of a convicted shoplifter reduce the crime rate in a given community?

Can you trust the judges to know when and where to stop?

What have they solved through this kind of punishment?

IS THAT PUNISHMENT RIGHT OR WRONG?

Some argued that a justice system is simply there to PUNISH.

Others argued that the justice system is there to restore a MORAL BALANCE.

The last party concluded that the justice system is required that wrong-doers must be made to SUFFER.

This notion of punishment to a crime is at the essence of the theory of retribution.

A modern liberal thinker would see a retributive theory of punishment as a primitive, vindictive and emotional response to a crime.

A crime can be considered a criminal action against a society in general and the victim (s) in particular.