Confucian Punishment And Punishment

I am going to write an essay on the retributivist approach and reductivist approach on punishment, comparing and contrasting both theories. To start off I will talk about the retributivism theory and the belief that an offender should be punished based upon the severity of the offense. I will them move onto just deserts which Is a modern retributivist theory which only focuses on crimes that have already committed making sure individuals get there just deserts for doing wrong. Next I will write about the reductivist theory which is all about trying to deter individuals from committing a crime or reoffending. Jeremy Bentham had a huge impact on reductivism believing if pain was to outweigh pleasure then it would deter individuals and overall nobody would have the desire to commit a crime as they are aware of the consequences they would have to face. Moving on to deterrence will talk about the two different types of deterrence; individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence focuses on stopping individuals from reoffending whereas general deterrence is about deterring individuals who have never even committed an offence from turning to crime. Once writing about both retributivism and reductivism I will start to compare and contrast both theories, looking at the similarities and differences. Finally I will give my own opinion on the theories and which theory I believe is best, talking about how retributivist and reductivist punishments are different and the good and

From 500CE until 1500CE was best known as the Medieval Ages. Medieval period began after the fall of the Roman Empire. In many parts of the Middle Ages significantly changed. Types of punishment and determination of guilt and innocence are examples of the continuity and change in the area of law and order.

They want to emphasize individual virtuous behavior, both by the ruler and the ruled as well as highly recommending obedience and respect, “people should know their place, even under bad rulers.” Even the Han emperors decided to implement Confucius ideas after looking at their doctrine called The Analects. The book shows Confucian political value and social order which states that the aristocrats and the educated are of the highest degree, and then comes farmers, and finally, the merchants. Although both Confucianism and Legalism call for governmental hierarchy, Confucianism possessed an optimistic view of human potential while Legalists believe that a powerful government is necessary along with a carefully devised law rewarding for good deeds and punishing for bad

Punishment refers to the deliberate or intentional infliction of pain and suffering on an individual for breaching a particular law or code of conduct established in a given society. The idea of punishment has been in existence for a long stretch of time in history with philosophers weighing upon the necessity or otherwise of punishment. Inasmuch as a considerable number of philosophers agree that

Confucius’ high emphasis on morality instead of profit was one of his major political ideals that he tried to persuade the the rulers of the kingdoms to pursue. However, his failure to convince any of those rulers reflected the prevalent pragmatic political culture at that period. After all, the kingdoms were at war with each other so that Confucius’ idea was inevitably less popular than those battle-winning strategies in favor of “profit.”

In restoring Confucianism to China, the Han government put their faith in the good of humanity. Under this system moral living by the people was paramount in the health of the government. The people were punished fairly (punishment fit the crime) for wrong doing but were encouraged to treat each other fairly, honor your parents, teachers, bosses, and governmental leaders. As an upper class, commoner or slave you were all important to the success of the government. Strength of the people and increased knowledge were stressed to create a more stable viable society. Each class of people had their place in the government and should not aspire to reach any

There was a doctrine fixed into law, called the Six Parasites. This is however a textual problem, there are actually sixteen. These “parasites” were rites, music, odes, history, cultivation, goodness, filial devotion, brotherly love, sincerity, trustworthiness, uprightness, integrity, humaneness, rightness, criticism of army, and lastly being ashamed of fighting. To violate any of these laws against the “six” was subject to punishment. Death to any criminals and any officials who allowed crimes, their punishments were carried out to their families and three generations after. “When punishments are imposed, they shall not be applied to the guilty party alone.” Punishments were severe. Small crimes were punished severly to make sure the punishment was understood and not repeated, especially if it were a larger crime. When Shang Yang wrote, “...if they let their ambition go too far, they will become too strong…” it is interpreted that knowledge and aspiration for a better life can be power and lead to rebellion against the government. “More consequential victims were the critical thinking of Legalists and the spirit of ruling by law, blamed for Qin’s demise and condemned for two millennia by Confucians advocating the rule by men

There was a time, like in the Qin Dynasty, that criticizing the government would lead to harsh punishments. Executions are also declined in these times which is unheard of by me in dynasties before the Han (module five video two). Our rulers now look to the Sage emperors for wisdom on how to govern this land, so that they can maintain their Mandate to Heaven, or in our language Heaven is known as Tian. Confucius taught that we should know our place in society and act accordingly, so this is what we all do for the greatness of our dynasty. This is also great being a father because it guarantees my sons show the utmost respect always, especially whilst they are young, and I am teaching them to be the man they will grow into. I earn this respect from my sons by teaching them the ways of life and educating them on how to be great men like I am someday. Not only do I earn their respect by educating them, but I earn it by loving them and caring for them. I teach them that we all

The four goals of punishment in the American criminal justice system are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The purpose of the four goals of punishment is to ensure that the sentence the criminal is receiving is reasonable and just. It is difficult to satisfy all of the components to the highest degree for all criminals. All of the goals serve a different purpose and are significant in their own way, but when combined together they create a very complex sentencing policy for criminals.

After the Qin Dynasty rule ended in China, the Han Dynasty was established and Confucianism spread. Confucianists believed that people should respect their superiors, they should have polite manners, and that emperors should rule by the means of their virtue instead of punishments. Documents 6 explains that if the people in China were to be led by virtue, then overall they will be good and all troubles can be avoided. Nonetheless, it is important to note that this document was written by the students of Confucius who may have favored their own method of exerting political power over other methods. Additionally, Emperor Ashoka from India was against using punishment to exert power. During the third century B.C.E., Ashoka of the Mauryan Dynasty conquered the Kalingas and killed about one hundred thousand people. After his conquest, he was influenced by the teachings of the Buddha known as the Dhamma, and he promised that he shall never kill another human. Document 4 reveals that after Ashoka realized his love for the Dhamma, he wanted all treatments to be carried out fairly. As it can be seen, the Han Dynasty of China and Emperor Ashoka of the Mauryan Dynasty in India used the method of avoiding punishments to exert their political

Secondly, Confucius viewed rules and laws as harmful. He argued that people led by laws and punishments will try to avoid punishment but lose the sense of shame. If they are led by virtue and guided by propriety, they will preserve their sense of shame and become good citizens5. He saw a country as an extended family and a ruler should take care of his citizens like a father would take care of his children. The ruler as the “father” would need to set a proper example for the right ethics to flow down5.

In most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].