Reflective Journal: Theories of Punishment and Social Impact

This reflective journal examines five key philosophies of punishment: rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and restoration, within the context of the criminal justice system. It explores how these theories are applied during sentencing and the influence of modernism on punishment, particularly the shift from physical punishment to imprisonment. The journal further analyzes the politics of punitiveness, highlighting the impact of political environments, conservative moral values, and socio-economic structures on public attitudes toward crime and punishment. It also delves into the effects of stigma, discrimination, and the legitimacy of punitive responses to disadvantaged individuals, as well as the concept of diverse punishment and military discipline. Finally, the journal touches upon court consultation and the final assessment processes in legal proceedings, referencing relevant academic sources.

Running head: REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
Reflective journal
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
1. Five philosophies of punishment are practiced in criminal justice system; rehabilitation,
deterrence, retribution, incapacitation and restoration with a philosophy for preventing
criminal offenses to occur. Deterrence tries to convince individuals not to violate laws or
commit crimes. Rehabilitation explains that crime is committed by sick person or
criminal due to psychological or physical problems therefore need to be rehabilitated and
released from prison. Incapacitation explains that it is important to isolate offenders to
prevent crimes from society and should be kept in prisons. Retribution justifies
punishment described as penalty being a concept in criminal punishment. This theory
explains that offender need to be punished by taking away their opportunities gained
through illegal or criminal acts. Finally, restoration explains that when a crime is
committed, criminal offender need to pay for the loss of property or any damage caused
(Harrison 1990). These theories are applied by judges while sentencing offenders and use
penalties suiting the criminal offense without any influence from political, social, ethical
or moral factors.
2. Modernism is the recap of all economic, social and political changes that took place in
prison in the face of punishment. As explained by Cohen 1986, prison is a mechanism of
progress in the civilising process. In context to modernism, during the 18th century
(1750s-1970s), liberalism was defined by utilitarian aspects of punishment justified as
offenders who broke ‘social contract’. Later, penal modernism moved from punishment
of body to imprisonment being the main form of punishment for offenders who
committed crimes. Punishment was aimed at making bad people good and makes them
culturally acceptable inflicting punishment of the body. During the 18th and 19th century,
the modern society viewed punishment through which reproach or disapproval is
expressed (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001). Punishment inside prison is not aimed at
causing pain rather convey a strong signal to offender that pain is the repercussion or
consequence of punishment, although not an essential element. The theory of politics of
punitiveness posits that state’s political environment greatly influence the degree to
which it incarcerate citizens, political determinants of state being conditional. From
political psychology, punitiveness is grounded popular idea of conservative moral values
and concerns in collective cohesion and security. Conservatism is embedded in ideology
of punishment suggesting that people commit crime that lack self-control and moral

2REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
conscience and harsh punishment can help to bring them on the right track (Simon and
Feeley 2003).
3. The impact of punitive attitudes and dangerous states of public and government is that
punitiveness towards crime is hypothesized to act decisively in period of relative
uncertainty. From the sociological perspective, it is argued that public attitude towards
punitive is influenced by dynamics of socio-economic structure. The politicians assume
that public is becoming punitive towards crime that is being over-estimated. Policy
makers assume that individual differences in attitudes of people are due to psychological
factors. The socio-demographic factors play a role in understanding the impact of crime
and punishment. Conservatism also plays an important role in influencing public
attitudes towards punitive having an impact as convicted criminals should be punished
through tougher prison sentences rather than rehabilitating offenders (Christie and Hanna
2006).
4. The legitimacy of punitive response to people who are disadvantaged illustrates idea of
discrimination and stigma that does not alien with law. Stigma is negative leading to
punitive response where it is related to conviction and unjustified stigma having a
negative conviction towards offenders. There is stigma being legitimate associated with
disadvantaged situations, examples of actions that are of criminal nature. Offenders are
being stigmatized and racism prevails rooted in the society rather than individual
behaviour. The legitimate antenna is tuned towards unjustifiable stigma arising from
arbitrary ascription of negative attitude that results in social punitive response leading to
persistent disadvantage to people. This depicts that public response to situations of
disadvantaged is punitive (Carrabine and Longhurst 1998).
5. Diverse punishment is embedded in the concept where different legislation and
communities choose various types of punishment for punishing criminals differently.
These punishments may be either majorly offensive to some people or may be not to
others. Military discipline and punishment makes a difference between an army and a
mob. This form of behaviour are the consequences of indoctrination and training that is
designed ensuring compliance to orders among groups and individuals creating and
maintaining cohesion in military. Discipline is the important factor that holds armies
together, loyalty towards comrades and unit and leadership (Weber 2017). Court

3REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
consultation is conference between attorney and counsel engaged in understanding the
cause of the case, arrangement of proofs and removal of difficulties during case
examination. Final assessment is the way evidence and statements of witnesses are
examined to give the final judgment on the case whether to support or reject the proofs in
consultation with plaintiff’s witness.

4REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
References
Carrabine, E. and Longhurst, B., 1998. Gender and prison organisation: Some comments on
masculinities and prison management. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(2), pp.161-
176.
Christie, C.J. and Hanna, R.M., 2006. A Push down the Road of Good Corporate Citizenship:
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey
and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 43, p.1043.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E., 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), pp.278-321.
Harrison, R., 1990. State Punishment By Nicola Lacey London: Routledge, 1988, xiii+ 222 pp.,£
25.00.
Simon, J. and Feeley, M., 2003. The form and limits of the new penology. Punishment and
social control, 2, pp.75-116.
Weber, C.J.S., 2017. Whatever Happened to Military Good Order and Discipline?. Cleveland
State Law Review, 66(1), p.123.