origin of punishment

origin of punishment

It is challenging to understand the actual origin of punishment, as it is a well-developed social norm. Nevertheless, numerous speculation has been made regarding its origin. For instance, in biblical literature, punishment is believed to have started in the Garden of Eden, where the man was evicted and cursed. The bible also describes hell as a form of punishment. Importantly, the punishment was present in ancient civilization, and it was widely used in Greece and the Roman Empire for both judicial and educational discipline. The approaches to punishment are described in different ways. For example, because the actor of crime is a rational criminal, the classical method of punishment states that the actor should receive severe punishment. At the same time, the positive approach relates crime to many different potential factors linked to the criminal’s social environment. According to the classical thinking system, harsh punishments prevent people from engaging in misconduct. However, punishment is an attempt to avoid further crime based on a positivist approach.

The classical criminology school came into being in the 1800s when many classic thinkers responded to severe, inhuman penalties that existed at the time. Classical criminology is derived from the ideas of Cesare Beccaria. Beccaria examined criminals, crime, and punishment with the understanding that the people who engage in crime should carry their cross. Customary writers such as Voltaire and Montesquieu encouraged unique classical thinking through their involvement in campaigns that pushed for a more enlightened approach towards punishment and justice. The society likewise craved for new forms of criminal prosecution. Classical theorists conclude that criminals make sensible decisions and choose to commit crimes because of the greatest pleasure and the lowest possible pain. According to the classical school of thought, criminals are rational; they examine the costs of their actions (DeMelo, n.d.). Therefore, there is a need to develop deterrence that outweighs the gains from the crime. Notably, this is perhaps the underlying reason behind the death penalty.

Moreover, the classical school of thought has had a significant impact on criminological thinking and an incredible effect on the criminal justice system. In the United States, for instance, the concept of punishment as appropriate and acceptable has developed to become a significant foundation for contemporary criminal justice. Likewise, the beginning of the 19th century saw the launch of numerous incarceration centers, which is today a considerable system of punishment. The idea of prisons was to take away punishment from the body and instill it on the mind and soul.

On the other hand, the positivist school of thought was established by three criminal theorists: Enrico Ferr, Cesare Lombroso, and Raffaele Garofalo. The three individuals, in this case, attempted to find scientific objectives for measuring and quantifying criminal behavior. The positivist approach was developed by observing the characteristics of criminals and the underlying cause of their behaviors. As a result, it was noted that criminals are born criminals, and they are not made into crime (DeMelo, n.d.). In simpler terms, it is nature but not the nurture that makes an individual engage in crime.

One significant difference between classical approaches and the positivist approach is the way each method responds to crime. For instance, the classical approach focus on punishing the individual involved in crime. The positivist approach focuses on treating and reforming the offender. Another difference is that the positivist approach was introduced in the 19th century, which was an era filled with social and political turmoil. Notably, the key reason for this approach was to implement scientific theories to issues of crime and criminology. The classical approach, on the other hand, was introduced to transform the legal system. The similarity of the two methods is that they both offered punished for crimes but in different ways. Also, the two approaches share the idea that individuals can be controlled through specific actions.

There are many reasons why people choose to engage in crime. For instance, a person may decide to steal because he or she is hungry. However, being hungry does not justify stealing. Notably, if such a person is offered food, he or she may not engage in crime. Similarly, if the person is imprisoned, he may also deter from such acts. In such instances, there is no need to use harsh punishment. However, some are born criminals. Notably, these are the people who lenient punishment, such as imprisonment, does not help reform them. In such instances, a severe penalty may be needed. Importantly, both approaches play a vital role in any given criminal activity.

The Positivist School first studied the natural source of crime, then the legal and social consequences, to identify various solutions that have the highest effects on the different causes of crime. The Classical School of Thought, on the other hand, was interested in penology and, ultimately, the idea that humans are devious creatures. Even though the two approaches are different, they convey a similar concept that people can be controlled by implementing specific actions.