Should the punishment fit the crime or the criminal?

Question

At what point must society look at the crime independently of the criminal to dispense justice? Should the punishment be exactly the same for somebody with NO record as it is for somebody with a history of criminal behavior?

Or at what point must society punish the criminal for repeated offenses, regardless of the crime committed?

Is one seen as justice for society (fitting the criminal) rather than justice for the criminal (fitting the crime)?

And if the punishment must fit both, how can this be accomplished?

Answer 1

I believe the punishment should fit the criminal in most circumstances. For example, who should be punished more severely? The mother who steals food to feed her children or the woman who steals just because she can. Technically, our system of justice is set up to consider both the crime and the criminal. That is why most states have a sentencing range for each crime, e.g., 1-5 years for a lesser felony offense. The judge and/or the jury can take into consideration certain mitigating factors (in favor of a lesser punishment) and certain aggravating factors (in favor of a harsher punishment) when setting a sentence within that range. I think the why and the who should always be considered when setting a punishment.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

What happens if you ask the question the other way around to answer it? Should the crime or the criminal fit the punishment? I can personally think of a lot of people I would happily put away for 5 or 10 years but that might not correlate exactly with what they may have and/or may have not done and/or omitted to do.

Answer 4

Both, because the person who commits the crime is part of the situation of the crime.

In the US, the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments" -- which is relative to the crime -- however, due process concerns allow for things to vary based on the individual as well -- so the punishment can be based in part on who commits the crime, as well as the other facts of the crime itself.

As to whether we "should" punish repeat offenders more than 1st-time criminals -- that's a value judgment. Personally, I think so, if only to try and create some actual deterrent to recidivism. But legally and constitutional, we can do so as long as the rules are clearly spelled out in advance, for due process reasons.

Answer 5

Well of course that depends on the individual. some repeat offenders doing more petty crime like thieving, maybe just need redirection in their lives to accomplish better things. so the prison system itself should be focusing on rehabilitation for those who are able to be rehabilitated. also, some form of psychological profile which determines the criminals intent or their capability for remorse should be a factor. but when it comes to crime that is more serious like child molestation, rape, murder, etc....automatic higher sentencing should be implemented and mandatory rehab must be done for all those serious criminals even thought they should not be let out of the prison. And the prisons, should clean up their act too, half the criminals in there learn newer tactics in prison from other inmates. rapists and murderers should get life sentences but have a chance to redeem themselves in prison and maybe become prison counsellors to the other fresh faced inmates. however do not let those ones out too early if they are serious crimes. the pettey thieves and such, only let them out if there is absolute proof they have been rehabilitated. and if not, they should go to another minimum security prison where they can semi give back to the community via working or community based service.

Answer 6

It fits the criminal first, for the law first asks is this person of age or a minority, is this person competent, is this person advised of rights, is this person under jurisdiction of the court, is this person able to face the accuser, is this person properly represented, was this person convicted properly, were there extenduating circumstances , is this person a first time, second time offenderd, etc. But at some point, if the person is a non-status offender, then they person will be tried and treated by the crime....armed robbery of a bank, you do time. but then, was this a state crime, or federal offense, was there premeditation, etc.?

Answer 7

Criminal Record Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Support