Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Socrates - Reflection Paper

    Uploaded by

    JpSocrates
    The document discusses the four penological objectives of criminal law: retribution, prevention/restriction, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It then examines whether death penalty fits within these objectives. While death penalty satisfies retribution and deterrence, there are questions around whether it actually serves the interests of the victim or society. Imposing death also does not allow for the rehabilitation of the individual. Overall, the document questions whether death penalty truly achieves the goals of deterring crimes when many are unaware of legal consequences and risking innocent lives.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Socrates - Reflection Paper

    Uploaded by

    JpSocrates
    107 views2 pages
    The document discusses the four penological objectives of criminal law: retribution, prevention/restriction, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It then examines whether death penalty fits within these objectives. While death penalty satisfies retribution and deterrence, there are questions around whether it actually serves the interests of the victim or society. Imposing death also does not allow for the rehabilitation of the individual. Overall, the document questions whether death penalty truly achieves the goals of deterring crimes when many are unaware of legal consequences and risking innocent lives.

    Original Title

    Socrates - Reflection paper

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the four penological objectives of criminal law: retribution, prevention/restriction, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It then examines whether death penalty fits within these objectives. While death penalty satisfies retribution and deterrence, there are questions around whether it actually serves the interests of the victim or society. Imposing death also does not allow for the rehabilitation of the individual. Overall, the document questions whether death penalty truly achieves the goals of deterring crimes when many are unaware of legal consequences and risking innocent lives.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    107 views2 pages

    Socrates - Reflection Paper

    Uploaded by

    JpSocrates
    The document discusses the four penological objectives of criminal law: retribution, prevention/restriction, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It then examines whether death penalty fits within these objectives. While death penalty satisfies retribution and deterrence, there are questions around whether it actually serves the interests of the victim or society. Imposing death also does not allow for the rehabilitation of the individual. Overall, the document questions whether death penalty truly achieves the goals of deterring crimes when many are unaware of legal consequences and risking innocent lives.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Socrates, Juan Pablo P.

    2012-33487 / BGC Day 2020


    UP College of Law

    Tackling Death Penalty in the Context of the Penological Objectives of Criminal Law

    The article of Professor Tadiar entitled “A Philosophy of the Penal Code” discusses,

    among others, the penological objectives, or the rationale behind establishing a penal system in a

    society. Professor Tadiar mentions four objectives, namely, retributive punishment,

    prevention/restriction, rehabilitation or reformation, and deterrence.

    Under the first penological objective, the State addresses the human instinct to lash out

    against those who have wronged us. But since the State does not look with favor on violence, it

    assumes, in place of the individual victim, the role of exacting punishment on those who commit

    the crime or offense. On the other hand, under the prevention or restrictive theory, those who

    commit wrong are confined in a penal institution so that they may be prevented from causing

    further harm in society.

    Under the third penological objective, criminal law also has the aim of rehabilitating or

    reforming those whom society has considered to be morally unfit. Lastly, the criminal law also

    has the function of deterring the commission of more crimes by instilling the fear of punishment

    in the public.

    In the light of these penological objectives, we can then proceed to discuss an issue that

    has been occupying the attention of many of our lawmakers, i.e., the question of whether or not

    death penalty should be imposed again in our jurisdiction.

    It seems that the idea of death penalty fits more into the first and last penological

    objectives that were mentioned by Professor Tadiar, i.e., retributive punishment and deterrence.
    With respect of retributive punishment, there is no dispute that death penalty does manifest the

    capacity of a State to exact vengeance on behalf of a wronged party. However, whether death is

    the kind of punishment that a particular victim wishes to inflict upon the perpetrator of the

    offense is a question that only the victim can actually answer. And whether imposing death as a

    punishment would actually serve the interest of peace and order that the State sought to achieve

    by having a retributive penal system, is something that our lawmakers would do well to reflect

    on.

    As regards the idea of a penal system as a source of deterrence, it is important to note that

    Prof. Tadiar mentioned that this theory is anchored on certain presuppositions, namely, that the

    citizens have free will, that they have awareness of criminal sanctions, and that they fear

    punishment and will therefore avoid it. It would be good if our lawmakers can take these factors

    into account in deciding on whether or not to allow for the imposition of death penalty. Will it

    truly serve its purpose of deterring crimes, if a large chunk of our population is unaware of the

    legal consequences of their actions? Will the fear of death truly prevent the commission of

    crimes in all circumstances?

    Lastly, will the State risk the chance that an innocent individual may be subjected to the

    death penalty for the probability that the others will be deterred from comitting crimes? And how

    about the third penological objective, i.e., rehabilitation/reformation? Can there be reformation

    when the one you seek to reform has already died?

    You might also like