Hey, I'm just a bit confused about the whole concept of 'achieving justice'. I've received an essay question in school which asks us to "evaluate the effectiveness of sentencing and punishment in achieving justice" and I have a few queries:
- How do we correctly answer this question? For example, rehabilitation achieves justice for the offender and society by reintegrating them into the community yet it does not achieve justice for victims since they are primarily focused on retribution as the purpose of punishment - so does rehabilitation achieve justice or not?
- Is judicial discretion effective or ineffective in achieving justice? While it comes at the expense of uniformity, judicial discretion through victim impact statements and aggravating/mitigating factors ensures that each case is treated individually, thus maximising the potential for justice for society and the victim. As such, what is the prime assessment for achieving justice - is it ensuring equality before the law and upholding the rule of law or is it about getting the best possible outcome for both the individual and society in cases?
- How do we correctly answer this question? For example, rehabilitation achieves justice for the offender and society by reintegrating them into the community yet it does not achieve justice for victims since they are primarily focused on retribution as the purpose of punishment - so does rehabilitation achieve justice or not?
- Is judicial discretion effective or ineffective in achieving justice? While it comes at the expense of uniformity, judicial discretion through victim impact statements and aggravating/mitigating factors ensures that each case is treated individually, thus maximising the potential for justice for society and the victim. As such, what is the prime assessment for achieving justice - is it ensuring equality before the law and upholding the rule of law or is it about getting the best possible outcome for both the individual and society in cases?