[1]Esther impact of their action. Similarly retribution
1EstherF.J.C. Van Ginneken, The Pain And Purpose Of Punishment: A SubjectivePerspective (2016) org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HLWP-22-2016.pdf>accessed 18 December 2017. 2’SentencingBasics’ (Sentencingcouncil.org. uk) uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-basics/>accessed 18 December 2017. 3 ‘CriminalJustice | Restorative Justice Council’ (Restorativejustice.org.uk) org.uk/criminal-justice> accessed 16 December2017.4 HeatherStrang and others, ‘Campbell Library’ (Campbellcollaboration.org, 2013) Although deterrent theory can beeffective in some light it shouldn’t be considered as a primary purpose. Thisis due to the fact that it an be quite ineffective as previously shown with theONS statistics. It also fails to consider crime done out of impulse and illnesswhich in modern times of crime seems to be an increasing matter. Other aimssuch as reparation or punishment of offender need to be considered for asentence to be fully effective. Reparation through restorative justice iseffective as offenders can see the impact of their action. Similarlyretribution is effective as the offender is being punished for his wrong doing.It could be said that the purpose of punishment would be best when 2 aims areintegrated. Punishment of offender and deterrence would work well as it is punishingthe offender for the crime committed but similarly is deterring offenders from committingcrime. Conclusion One aim of sentencing is reparationwhich an be achieved through restorative justice. Restorative justice aims toput right the wrong caused or to restore the situation in some way. The process entails controlled communicationbetween both the offender and the victim and can be in the form of a letter, avideo call or a face to face meeting3.This enables the victim to explain the impact of the crime and allows them tofeel less victimised. This also give the offender the chance to develop a senseof blameworthiness. Overall restorative justice has prove to be effective atlowering reoffending rates as demonstrated by the Campbells systematic review4.There they looked at 10 case studies which were focused on face to face meetingand victim satisfaction whilst in the Restorative justice programme. They foundthat those 10 in the studies committed less crime in the future than others whojust had the prison experience. They also found that victims were moresatisfied when using restorative justice as they were more likely to receive asincere apology for the crime. UsingReparation mainly restorative justice as an aim of sentencing would be betterthan a deterrent at it prevent future offending like a deterrent but also gofurther in that it considers the impact on the victim. Reparation through restorativejustice (RJ) One purpose of sentencing ispunishment of offender. The punishment of an offender aims to penalize theindividual for the crime they committed. The punishment they receive must be inproportion to the offence committed to demonstrated that the consequence of thecrime outweighs the benefit of the crime. It’s clear that punishment ofoffender has retributive aims1 asits has the similar purpose of punishing an individual for a wrong doing. However,the overall purpose of punishment of offender is unclear as it very subjectiveand its not just limited to punishment. They use things such as fines,community work and compensation2 topunish individuals but these have reparative values. The use of community workfor crimes such as vandalism means they are repaying society for they damagethey caused as well as being punished for the damage caused. The punishment of offenderaim on a whole is useful in that it is punishing offenders and is includingreparative value but it is only focusing on punishing offender and not onpreventing future crime. In terms of whether it should be the primary purposeof sentencing it would be a good aim if deterrence was included alongside it toprevent future offending and reoffending.Punishment of offender Consideration of other aims
