The Philosophy of Punishment

The ideas about imposing consequences for particular actions do have a plausible inclination.  However, there is a mystical stereotype about these actions that a lot of people seem to be easily circumvented by.  Punishment is defined as something negative and unfavorable, and it is these characteristics that the criminal justice system emphasizes when a sentence is rendered.  The act of implementing a form of retribution on an offender is a necessary element, whether it is by incapacitation or monetary sanctions.  Nevertheless, if the punishment does not fit the standards of negative consequences for the offender then the consequences have no just cause except for the removal from society.  Meaning that if an offender does not see his or her punishment as a negative occurrence (punishment) then whatever formal proceedings about the situation that is being dealt with has no purpose, except for the removal of an offender from society, and even that can be deemed as not a sufficient punishment by the offender (the "not a big deal" mentality).   

Moreover, adequate punishments are difficult to attain if an offender has this ideology about punishment and attempting to conjure up an effective consequence has extreme difficulties.  Since the law requires the punishment be placed upon the person or persons that committed or aided in the offense any options outside of this realm are impossible, as well as impractical.  For example, if an offender does not think or feel that they are being punished then stepping into the external boundaries of an offender’s life would be a reasonable consideration.  Although, this consideration loses its merit because the other extremities are not involved with the criminal act (ie. punishing family, friends, or business relationships), again, the only positive outcome is that the offender has been removed from the community, which in turn makes it a safer place to live.  It is a discussion like this (the one you are reading) that brings attention to the uselessness of stiff sentences, theories of deterrence, and zero tolerance policies.  All of these alleged forms of punishment only work if the person receiving the consequences thinks that it is detrimental.  The idea that society benefits is half true; yes, the removal of an offender can have its perks, but the burden to support this person while they are incarcerated falls back upon society.  Even with the minimal necessities being incorporated the amount of financial assistance required for the sustainment of one’s life behind bars is a burden amongst many law abiding citizens.   
             
            Lastly, the idea of punishment only works for habitual offenders or extremely callous criminals, using an approach that only seeks to punish a person displays an apathetic distribution of justice and suggests that people cannot be properly rehabilitated.  Many dilemmas about the administration of justice and how it should be applied can be eliminated from this theory.  If an offender commits a heinous crime the use of swift punishment seems to be ideal; however, if an offender can be properly restored to the common standards of society then not utilizing this approach is an egregious attempt of humanity.