Introduction
The maintenance of law and order in a society is undoubtedly the basis of a peaceful coexistence and harmonious correlation between people in the society. However, such societal balance may be compromised by certain acts of crimes committed by individuals within the society in question (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). The concerned authorities have therefore established various judicial mechanisms in an attempt to restore the aforementioned balance within their area of jurisdiction. For instance, individuals engaging in any criminal act are subjected to fair trial and thereafter punished if found guilty of the offence or otherwise acquitted if innocent. The punishment directed towards offenders is either meant to justify the fact that criminals deserve such sentence or to minimize or even prevent such acts in the future (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). These reasons justify the theory of punishment which is discussed at length in this paper. It is always in the interest of a society to uphold order and balance since these are the prerequisites of happiness and peaceful coexistence among the people in the society. To achieve this, various legal institutions ranging from small domestic courts to the superior international courts have been established in an attempt to dispense justice to all thereby restoring balance in the society. The accused are subjected to trial after which conviction or acquittal is granted depending on the outcome of the legal proceedings (Briggs & Friedman, 2009). Briggs & Friedman (2009) poses that if the offender is found guilty of a crime; she/he is punished by the court to serve a specified period of time in the confinement. Such punishment justifies the attempt by the authority to maintain order and happiness within its jurisdiction. However, crime and punishment jeopardizes the happiness hence should be reduced to the minimum level possible (Schlegel, 1991). Reasons for punishment vary according to the theory of punishment. To begin with, punishment may be passed by the jury with an aim of reducing or preventing the occurrence of similar crimes in the future. In such a situation, the offender is individually deterred from committing such a crime within the time s/he is confined. On the other hand, the offender can also be generally deterred by being confined in prison to convey a stern message to other potential criminals against committing such an offense (Bagaric, 2001). For instance, cases on war crimes as well as crimes against humanity have been initiated by the ICC as well as other international legal organs to deter offenders especially leaders against such crimes. The criminal case against the late Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, was an example of both specific and general deterrence (Bagaric, 2001). To begin with, the conviction of Saddam not only stopped him from committing any further atrocity or crimes against humanity but was also used by the court to warn other dictators against such crimes. This is what is referred to as the utilitarian reason in the punishment theory (Bagaric, 2001).
Utilitarian theory
Utilitarian theory can also encompass rehabilitation where the convict is confined within a correctional facility and offered training on behavior change in an attempt to make him/her a better person who can relate well with other people in the society upon release. Besides, rehabilitation may encompass treatment for convicts with mental problems. Generally, the utilitarian reason for punishment focuses on future aspect of the crime with the main aim of preventing or reducing such offences to the minimum levels in the society (Bagaric, 2001). On the other hand, offenders may be punished for other reasons referred to as the non-utilitarian reasons/retributive theory (Moore, 2010).
Non-Utilitarian theory
Unlike utilitarian theory, this aspect of punishment focuses on the crime itself. A punishment is imposed on the offender not with the aim of discouraging, or deterring him/her from committing similar crimes in the future or even rehabilitating the convict but because s/she has done wrong and therefore deserves the punishment (Moore, 2010). This is a backward-looking aspect of punishment where the focus is shifted to the transgression as the root of punishment (Law & Martin, 2009). Many people still believe that the death sentence passed against Saddam Hussein was based on the non-utilitarian aspect of punishment. The Bush administration which catapulted the legal proceedings against the former Iraqi leader believed that the accused had committed serious crimes including atrocities, crimes against humanity as well as war crimes hence deserved to be hanged. The court confirmed that Saddam had a sound mind and was therefore in a position to make rational decisions during his tenure as the president of Iraq as well as the period during which legal proceedings were underway. He therefore deserved punishment because he chose to undermine the balance of the society. Such an action just as stipulated in the retributive theory supports an argument that individuals with insane mind or are sick in any way should not be punished by the court of law (Moore, 2010). Theorists believe that a wrongdoer should be made to suffer since that is exactly he/she did to others, an argument that was used in the ancient times especially in the Old Testament of the Christian bible. In a nutshell, retributive theory restores the legitimate right of both the offender as well as that of the society in the essence that the former is allowed to pay for the debt s/he owes the society through punishment imposed upon him by the legal institution.
Denunciation theory
Lastly, the theory of punishment may also take a different perspective entailing the condemnation of the offender by the society through legal proceedings. This theory, always referred to as the denunciation theory has both the utilitarian as well as non- utilitarian aspects in it. It is utilitarian in that the offenders are deterred from committing similar crimes in the future through public denunciation. On the other hand, denunciation theory is retributive in the fact that the criminals deserve to be punished for the wrong they have committed. In a nutshell, various governments have adopted different legal mechanisms to uphold order and balance in their area of jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The above discussed theory of punishment is applied by various administrations to prevent or minimize similar crimes thereby restoring balance in the society (Law & Martin, 2009). Utilitarian reasons forms the most humane aspect of punishment as it focuses on the future response rather than the backward-looking non-utilitarian reasons of punishment. The conviction of Saddam Hussein by the Baghdad court not only stopped the late Iraqi president from committing such similar crimes in the future but also sent a stern message to other potential dictators worldwide that crimes against humanity as well as war crimes undermine the societal order and are therefore punishable.
Reference List
Bagaric, M. (2001). Punishment and sentencing: a rational approach. London: Routledge.
Briggs, S. & Friedman, J. (2009). Criminology for Dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Law, J. & Martin, E. (2009). A dictionary of law. 7th Ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. (2010). Placing Blame: A General Theory of the Criminal. London: Oxford University Press.
Schlegel, K. (1990). Just Deserts for Corporate Criminals. London: UPNE.