Motorcycle history begins in the second half of the 19th century.

Motorcycles are descended from the "safety

bicycle," a bicycle with front and rear wheels of the same size and a pedal crank mechanism to drive the rear
wheel.[1] Despite some early landmarks in its development, motorcycles lack a rigid pedigree that can be traced
back to a single idea or machine. Instead, the idea seems to have occurred to numerous engineers and
inventors around Europe at around the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_history

Motorcycling is riding a motorcycle. For most people in the world, motorcycling is the only
affordable form of individual motorized transportation, and small displacement motorcycles are the
most common motor vehicle in the most populous countries of the world, including India, China and
Indonesia.[1][2][3][4]
In the developed world, motorcycling goes beyond being just a mode of motor transportation
or sport. It is also leisure activity and numerous subcultures and lifestyles have evolved around the
use of motorcycles. Although mainly a solo activity, motorcycling can be very social and
motorcyclists tend to have a strong sense of community with each other.[5][6]
Motorcycles are mainly a luxury good in the developed world, where they are used mostly for
recreation, as a lifestyle accessory or a symbol of personal identity. In developing countries,
motorcycles are overwhelmingly utilitarian due to lower prices and greater fuel economy. Of all the
motorcycles in the world, 58% are in the Asia Pacific and Southern and Eastern Asia regions,
excluding car-centric Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycling

Transportation affects every aspect of our lives and daily routine, including where we live, work,
play, shop, go to school, etc. It has a profound impact on residential patterns, industrial growth,
and physical and social mobility. Roads, highways, freeways and mass transit systems do not
spring up out of thin air. They are planned. Someone makes a conscious decision to locate
freeways, bus stops, and train stations where they are built. Transportation is no less a civil
rights and quality of life issue. Safety and accessibility are the most significant considerations in
transportation planning. Zoning and other practices of exclusion result in limited mobility for poor
people and those concentrated in central cities.

Over the past decades, automobile production and highway construction have multiplied, while
urban mass transit systems have been dismantled or allowed to fall into disrepair. The end
result has meant more pollution, traffic congestion, wasted energy, urban sprawl, residential
segregation, and social disruption.
All communities have not received the same benefits from transportation advancements and
investments. Some of the governmental policies in housing, land use, environment, and
transportation may have even contributed to and exacerbated social inequities. Some
communities accrue benefits from transportation development projects, while other communities
bear a disproportionate burden and pay cost in diminished health. Generally, benefits are more
dispersed, while costs or burdens are more localized. Having a multi-lane freeway next door is
not a benefit to someone who does not even own a car.
The automobile-oriented construction and infrastructure projects cut wide path through lowincome and destitute neighborhoods, physically insolated residents from their institutions and
businesses, disrupted once-stable communities, displaced thriving businesses, contributed to
urban sprawl, subsidized infrastructure d..
http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/18366.html

Go to:
1. Introduction
Crime generates substantial costs to society at individual, community, and national levels. In the United
States, more than 23 million criminal offenses were committed in 2007, resulting in approximately $15
billion in economic losses to the victims and $179 billion in government expenditures on police
protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004a, 2007a, 2008).
Programs that directly or indirectly prevent crime can therefore generate substantial economic benefits by
reducing crime-related costs incurred by victims, communities, and the criminal justice system.
Substance abuse treatment is one example of an intervention that not only has the potential to improve
individual lives through recovery from addiction but also may generate significant economic benefits to
society by reducing addiction-related crime. Numerous studies have documented the strong relationship

between substance use and crime, and although causality between the two has not been conclusively
established, U.S. statistics show that more than 50% of state and federal inmates used drugs in the month
prior to committing the offense for which they were incarcerated and that more than a quarter of all
offenders were using drugs at the time of their offense (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2006; Miller et al., 2006). Most substance abuse treatment evaluations use standard assessment
instruments such as the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) (McLellan et al., 1992) and Global Appraisal of
Individual Needs (GAIN) (Dennis et al., 2006), which include measures of criminal activity or legal
problems. Economists can therefore use these criminal activity measures to estimate the dollar benefits of
substance abuse interventions if they have access to current and reliable unit cost estimates for individual
crimes. Many of the crime cost estimates currently available to analysts are more than ten years old and
were generated from even older data (e.g., Rajkumar and French, 1997; Cohen, 1988; Cohen et al.,
1994; Miller et al., 1996).
As presented in numerous prior studies, the cost of crime to society can be divided into four fundamental
components:
Victim costs

Direct economic losses suffered by crime victims, including medical care costs, lost earnings, and
property loss/damage.
Criminal justice system costs

Local, state, and federal government funds spent on police protection, legal and adjudication services, and
corrections programs, including incarceration.
Crime career costs

Opportunity costs associated with the criminals choice to engage in illegal rather than legal and
productive activities.
Intangible costs

Indirect losses suffered by crime victims, including pain and suffering, decreased quality of life, and
psychological distress.
Measuring losses across these four components provides an estimate of the economic cost of individual
crimes. The broad societal perspective is appropriate for economic analysis and program evaluation
because more narrow perspectives (e.g., crime victim, criminal justice agency, community organization)
apply to specific stakeholders or agendas. For comparability with previous research, this study uses
established methods while incorporating the most current sources of crime and cost data to produce an
expanded list of unit cost estimates for thirteen criminal offenses, including several crime categories not
found in previous studies. These new crime cost estimates are necessary inputs for full economic

evaluations of addiction treatment, neighborhood policing, welfare reform programs, and any other
programs or interventions with a crime prevention component.
Go to:
2. Literature Review
Previous studies estimating the economic impact of criminal activity vary greatly in their perspective,
methods, measures, and data sources. The literature includes peer-reviewed publications, as well as
unpublished manuscripts and government reports.
2.1. Government reports

Many government agencies are responsible for collecting criminal activity data as well as estimating the
cost of crime. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) collects large amounts of criminal
activity data for analysis and reporting. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a quantitative research
component within the DOJ, publishes an annual report entitled Criminal Victimization in the United
States based on its National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS). While this report can serve as an
important data source for quantifying criminal activities across various offense categories, it does not
independently estimate the total cost of crime. Specifically, the DOJ calculates direct victim costs, but
does not address the three other key components of the societal cost of crime.
Over the last two decades, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has sponsored a
series of reports entitled The Economic Costs to Society of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness.
Although relatively recent versions of the report calculate all four components of the societal cost of
crime (Harwood et al., 1998; Rice et al., 1990), these calculations only consider data for those crimes
committed by alcohol/drug abusers and the mentally ill and are not apportioned across individual criminal
offenses. Despite a comprehensive methodology, therefore, the reports cost estimates are not
disaggregated and are limited to a specific subset of the overall U.S. population.
2.2. Crime-costing methods

A variety of scientific studies have been instrumental in developing and refining crime-costing methods.
These studies have implemented various techniques to estimate costs, including the numerical crimeranking method (Roth, 1978; Schrager and Short, 1980; Evans, 1981; Phillips and Votey, 1981; Byers,
1993), the property-value method (Thaler, 1978; Gray and Joelson, 1979; Rizzo, 1979; Hellman and Fox,
1984; Little, 1988; Buck et al., 1991, Buck et al., 1993), the quality-of-life method (Dolan et al.,
2005; Nichols and Zeckhauser, 1975; Rosser and Kind, 1978; Rice and Mackenzie and Associates,
1989; French and Mauskopf, 1992; Miller et al., 1993;French et al., 1996; Viscusi and Aldy, 2003), the
willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach (Cohen et al., 2004; Ludwig and Cook, 2001; Viscusi and Zeckauser,
2008; Baron and Maxwell, 1996), the life satisfaction approach (Frey et al., 2009), market-based
modeling (Bartley, 2000), and a life-course model (Macmillan, 2000). Others have examined the
aggregate burden of crime (Anderson, 1999), the cost of alcohol and other drug-related crime (Miller et

al., 2006), or the cost of crime within components or for various sectors of the economy (Miller, Taylor,
and Sheppard, 2007; Corso et al., 2008; Wright and Litaker, 1996; Luna et al., 2001; Cohen and Miller,
1998;Miller et al., 2001; Miller and Cohen, 1997). Cohen (2005) and Czabanski (2008)provide a detailed
review of the different methodologies for estimating the cost of crime.
2.3. Unit cost studies

Only a handful of studies have estimated the societal cost of crime for specific criminal offenses. This
research provides a statistical framework as well as a context for interpreting the crime cost estimates
reported in the present study. Selected results of these studies are summarized in Table 1 across the
thirteen offense categories featured in the current study (all estimates have been converted to 2008 U.S.
dollars for comparison purposes) and discussed below. This table provides benchmark data and facilitates
the interpretation of our crime cost estimates within the range of previously estimated costs for specific
criminal offenses.

Table 1
Summary of Unit Crime Cost Estimates Reported in the Literature (2008 dollars)
Aos and colleagues (2001) estimated the costs and benefits of crime prevention programs and developed
unit costs for six types of crime using data from the state of Washington and methods advanced by Miller
and colleagues (1996). Offense categories included murder/manslaughter, rape/sex offenses, robbery,
aggravated assault, felony property crimes, and drug offenses. Notable in this study is the detailed data
available from Washingtons criminal justice system (CJS). Aos and colleagues measured the cost of
crime across 14 resource categories in the Washington criminal justice system (adult and juvenile).
Washington CJS estimates were supplemented with victim cost information from Miller and colleagues
(1996). Total costs (first reported in 2000 U.S. dollars) were $4.4 million per act of murder/manslaughter,
$219,286 per robbery, $369,739 per rape/sexual assault, $105,545 per aggravated assault, $22,739 per
property offense, and $28,121 per drug offense.
With his jury compensation approach, Cohen (1988) demonstrated how to estimate a monetary value
for pain, suffering, and fear in personal injury cases by combining victim injury data with jury awards.
Based on research by Viscusi (1983), Cohen set the value of a statistical life at $2 million. A monetary
value for the risk of death in each crime category was then calculated by multiplying the value of a
statistical life by corresponding Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-reported crime-related death rates.

Cost estimates (first reported in 1985 U.S. dollars) included $97,962 per rape/sexual assault, $23,025 per
aggravated assault, $24,168 per robbery, $344 per larceny/theft, $6,006 per motor vehicle theft, and
$2,575 per household burglary.
This jury compensation approach for calculating intangible victim costs was later combined with direct
victim cost data from 1987 to 1990 to estimate more broadly the per-offense cost of crime across four
crime categories (rape, assault, robbery, and arson). Estimates from Miller and colleagues (1993) (first
reported in 1989 U.S. dollars) were $4.1 million for a murder, $80,403 for a rape/sexual assault, $24,987
for an aggravated assault, $33,036 for a robbery, and $41,900 for an act of arson.
Besides unit cost estimates, Miller and colleagues (1996) calculated an aggregated societal cost of crime
for all criminal activity in the United States (first reported in 1993 U.S. dollars). Using predominantly
NCVS data, victim losses due to crimes against individuals and households were estimated at $450 billion
($1,800 per resident) per year from 19871990. These losses included $18 billion in medical and mental
health care spending, $87 billion in other tangible costs, and $345 billion in pain, suffering, and reduced
quality of life. Rape had the highest annual victim costs of all offense categories at $127 billion per year
($124,419 per offense). Per-offense crime cost estimates were also presented for murder ($4.4 million),
aggravated assault ($21,451), robbery ($18,591), arson ($53,629), larceny/theft ($529), motor vehicle
theft ($5,720), and burglary ($2,145). These estimates excluded crime career costs and included only
police and fire services in criminal justice system costs, leaving out major elements such as legal,
adjudication, and corrections costs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/

History Of Crime And Punishment

Criminology Essay
Crime is defined as an act that the law makes punishable and is often called an offense. It is an offense against
the public, as compared to a tort, which is a wrongdoing against an individual and gives rise to an action for
damages. Crimes produce two kinds of injuries: Social and Personal. Social injury pertains to the State and it is
repaired through the imposition of penalty prescribed by law, and Personal injury pertains to the offended party
and it is repaired by indemnification which is civil in nature. It is precisely because of these deleterious effects
that the State is empowered to make penal laws and compel its people to follow them in order to maintain
peace.
Crime has been in existence for a long time, although it was not called as such. In the Bible, Adam and Eve
disobeyed the Lord by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge despite an express prohibition to do so. Some
may regard what they did as a crime, although against a different being. Biblical passages found in the first five
books of the bible, collectively called Torah, have referred to the principle of an eye for an eye as basis of the
imposition of penalty.

This essay is an example of a student's work

Disclaimer
This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example
of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Who wrote this essayBecome a Freelance Writer

Place an Order

The earliest codified set of crimes or offenses with corresponding punishment was the Code of Ur-Nammu
dating back in 2050 BC. It was written in the Sumerian language and contained a list of prohibited acts with
their corresponding penalty if violated. The Code had provisions on dismissal based on corruption, protection of
the poor, and significantly, a system of punishment wherein the punishment for the crime committed is fair. Its
name, Ur-Nammu's Code, is actually a misnomer, because historians are of the opinion that his son, Shugli, is
the actual author of the Code.
In 1700 BC the Babylonian King, Hammurabi developed a code of laws with the principle, lex talionis (which
literally means the law of retaliation), which was called the Hammurabis Code. This principle enshrined in
ancient law, simply means that the offended party may return the same offending action to the origin of such
act. For instance a person from one tribe kills a member of another tribe; the law allows the imposition of the
same and equal penalty to the offending party, which means the offender shall be put to death. Lex talionis
embodies the principle of exact retaliation. The penalty for the violation of the code was cruel, barbaric and
inhumane. Theft was punished by cutting off a finger or the hand. The tongue was cut off if a person commits
defamation. The judiciary is headed by a single person or a group of persons deciding on a case, not on merit
or law, but on the basis of customs and tradition. In some cases, an accused was made to dive in the River
Euphrates to find out if he is innocent or not. If the offender floats, it means he is innocent, therefore, he keeps
his house and the accuser is put to death. However, if he drowns, it means that he is guilty and the accuser
gets his house.
In Ancient Greece, the penal law is described as being draconian, derived from Draco, the first Greek
legislator. Laws were singled out as being merciless. Capital punishment or death was imposed for crimes,
even for minor offenses. Ancient Rome had offered a more systematic system than Ancient Greece. However,
the basis of penalty remained to be retribution and it was made incumbent upon the victims family to serve
such punishment.
Philippine Setting
A system of government was already in place before the Spaniard conquered the Philippines in 1565. It was
called barangay which came from the Malay word balangay which in turn meant boat. Why it was named as
such is not clear, however, some historians opine that:
It may be inferred that the seafaring Filipinos, to give name to their nostalgic memories as they sailed in the
high seas towards the Philippine archipelago, named their villages after boats which brought them safely
across the seas until they reached the Philippine Islands.

The Datu was the head of the barangay. If the community was bigger, their leaders were called Rajahs. The
Datu exercised Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers. Like today, both Oral and Written Laws existed.
Historians had generally agreed, that the first codified set of laws in the Philippines is the Code of Kalantiyaw
dating back from 1433, written by Datu Kalantiyaw. Instead of the word law, it consisted of the following orders:
First Order. Ye shall not kill; neither shall ye do harm to the aged; lest ye incur the danger of death. All those
who disobey shall be condemned to death by being drowned in the river or placed in boiling water.
Second Order: Ye shall obey; let all your debts with the chief be met punctually. He who does not obey shall
receive for the first one hundred lashes. If the debt is large, he shall be condemned to thrust his hand in thrice
into boiling water. For the second time, he shall be condemned to be beaten to death.
Third Order. Ye shall obey; let no one have women that are very young nor more than he can support; nor be
given to excessive lust. He who shall not follow this order shall be condemned to swim for three hours for the
first time, and for the second time, he shall be lacerated with thorns.

Could you write a better essay? Apply to become a

freelance writer.
Why write for us?
We are the largest provider of model answers for students in the UK. As such, we can provide you with a
sustainable and flexible source of income. Weve been growing for over a decade and were always looking for
new talented and degree qualified writers to join our team.
In addition to the high volume of work we provide, we also offer the best fees in the industry with writers
earning up to 5,000 per month, as previously verified by the ASA.

Become a writer
Fourth Order. Observe and obey; let no one disturb the quiet of the graves. When passing by the caves and
trees where they are, give respect to them. He who does not observe this shall be killed by ants, or beaten to
death with thorns.
Fifth Order. You shall obey; he who exchanges for food, let it be always done in accordance with his word. He
who does not comply, shall be beaten for one hour, he who repeats the offense shall be exposed for one day
among ants.
Sixth Order. You shall be obliged to revere sights that are held in respect, such as those of trees of recognized
worth and other sights. He who fails to comply shall pay with one month's work in gold or in honey.
Seventh Order. These shall be put to death; he who kills trees of venerable appearance; who shoot arrows at
night at old men and women; he who enters the houses of the headmen without permission; he who kills a
shark or a streaked cayman.

Eighth Order. Slavery for a doam (a certain period of time) shall be suffered by those who steal away the
women of the headmen; by him who keep ill-tempered dogs that bite the headmen; by him who burns the fields
of another.
Ninth Order. All these shall be beaten for two days: who sing while traveling by night; kill the Manaul; tear the
documents belonging to the headmen; are malicious liars; or who mock the dead.
Tenth Order. It is decreed an obligation; that every mother teach secretly to her daughters matters pertaining to
lust and prepare them for womanhood; let not men be cruel nor punish their women when they catch them in
the act of adultery. Whoever shall disobey shall be killed by being cut to pieces and thrown to the caymans.
Eleventh Order. These shall be burned: who by their strength or cunning have mocked at and escaped
punishment or who have killed young boys; or try to steal away the women of the elders.
Twelfth Order. These shall be drowned: all who interfere with their superiors, or their owners or masters; all
those who abuse themselves through their lust; those who destroy their anitos (religious icons) by breaking
them or throwing them down.
Thirteenth Order. All these shall be exposed to ants for half a day: who kill black cats during a new moon; or
steal anything from the chiefs or agorangs, however small the object may be.
Fourteenth Order. These shall be made slave for life: who have beautiful daughters and deny them to the sons
of chiefs, and with bad faith hide them away.
Fifteenth Order. Concerning beliefs and traditions; these shall be beaten: who eat the diseased flesh of beasts
which they hold in respect, or the herb which they consider good, who wound or kill the young of theManaul, or
the white monkey.
Sixteenth Order. The fingers shall be cut-off: of all those who break anitos of wood and clay in their alangans
and temples; of those who destroy the daggers of the catalonans(priest/priestess), or break the drinking jars of
the latter.
Seventeenth Order. These shall be killed: who profane sites where anitos are kept, and sites where are buried
the sacred things of their diwatas and headmen. He who performs his necessities in those places shall be
burned.
Eighteenth Order. Those who do not cause these rules to be obeyed: if they are headmen, they shall be put to
death by being stoned and crushed; and if they are agorangs they shall be placed in rivers to be eaten by
sharks and caymans.
1433.
Despite Historians belief that the Kalantiyaw was the first codified set of laws in the Philippines, in 1968,
William Henry Scott, proved that it was a forgery actually made in the 20th Century. However, such fact
notwithstanding, there is a consensus among them that the ancient penal laws were similar to what was
allegedly written by Kalantiyaw, if not the same, cruel, inhumane and barbaric. Penalty was disproportionate to

the crime committed. Disputes, whether criminal or civil, were settled either by the head of the barangay, the
council of elders or through arbitration. The ancient principle of lex talionis, which had a very narrow definition
of, an eye for an eye, was very much alive in the early history of the Philippines, very much like in the other
parts of the world at that time.

This essay is an example of a student's work

Disclaimer
This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example
of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Who wrote this essayBecome a Freelance Writer

Place an Order

Being a colony of Spain for more than three hundred years, the laws of the Philippines are combination of
common and civil laws, which were a product of the lengthy period within which the country was under the
Spanish regime. Political and commercial laws follow a common law direction, and, civil and criminal laws,
follow the civil law.
Although long before the Spaniards came, the Philippines had a judiciary, headed by the datu, it was the
conquerors who gave as an organized system. The Royal Audencia was established to function as the
Supreme Court during the Spanish Colonization of the Philippines, which had the power to settle controversies,
and to check the abuses of the Governor General in the Philippines. On the side of the law, the Spanish Codigo
Penal was extended to the Philippines by virtue of Royal Decree of 1870. This was eventually replaced with the
Spanish Penal Code of 1848, by the Comision Codificadora de las Provincias de Ultramar, which was put in
place by Spanish authorities, and took effect in the Philippines in July 14, 1876. The Spanish Penal Code
contained two important innovations, which our old penal system did not have: incarceration, as a form of
punishment, and parole, as a form of reward for good behaviour while incarcerated.
Incarceration or imprisonment is the most relevant innovation that the Spanish colonizers introduced in our
penal system. It was used to detain a person under suspicion of committing a crime, and to punish,
incapacitate the offender, deter from committing an offense or rehabilitate him, upon conviction. Incarceration
replaced the barbaric and inhumane penalties of olden times. The capital punishment, however, remained in
the penal system, but was reserved for the most gruesome crimes, such as murder.
The Spanish Penal Code remained in effect during the American colonization of the Philippines. However,
seeing the need for penal law change, authorities formed a Committee on Revision, the primary function of
which was to revise the Penal Code put in place by the Spaniards. The 1927 Commission on Revision headed
by Anacleto Diaz, Quintin PAredes, Guilermo Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano de Joya, as members. The
Committee based the revised code on the Spanish Penal Code of 1848. On December 8, 1930, Act No. 3815
or the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines took effect; however, it did not undergo important change of
orientation or structure. The Revised Penal Code remain in effect today, with substantially the same list of
crimes and same fines, as the Spanish Penal Code of 1870.

Punishment
Punishment is an allowed and a desired form of social control, provided that it complies with the basic
limitations provided for by municipal laws and relevant international laws. It is allowed to be imposed to
preserve social order, which represents that state of peace and tranquillity, where individuals and groups are in
keeping with the overall scheme, lending predictability to social institutions. More, importantly punishment is
imposed to achieve justice.
Ancient civilizations have based their concept of justice, primarily, on vengeance, retribution, and
compensation. Punishment must be equal to the offense committed, such that if a person kills another, he shall
be put to death as punishment for his crime.
Punishment is imposed for various reasons, such as: to avenge the wrong doing against the offender, to instil
fear in penalty if an offense is committed, to incapacitate the offender by keeping him detained so that he will
not do any more crimes and, lastly, to reform the offender by individualizing his penalty which will, hopefully,
lead to rehabilitation. These are the four philosophies of Punishment: Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation
and Rehabilitation, respectively. In most parts of the world, retribution is the primary justification in imposing
penalties. However, with the increasing respect for human dignity, restorative justice is gaining speed.
Following the Enlightenment period, the value of human dignity surfaced. Immanuel Kant had said that not
everything must be determined by value, dignity he says is the absolute
inner value. The rising importance and awareness of human dignity resulted in the reduction of severe
punishment infliction and paved way for the more modern systems of punishment such as incarceration and
payment of fines for most minor offenses.
The new millennium brought about divergent views on criminology. German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche in
his book, The Birth of Tragedy, said, Man's highest good must be bought with a crime and paid for by the flood
of grief and suffering which the offended divinities visit upon the human race in its noble ambition.

Could you write a better essay? Apply to become a

freelance writer.
Why write for us?
We are the largest provider of model answers for students in the UK. As such, we can provide you with a
sustainable and flexible source of income. Weve been growing for over a decade and were always looking for
new talented and degree qualified writers to join our team.
In addition to the high volume of work we provide, we also offer the best fees in the industry with writers
earning up to 5,000 per month, as previously verified by the ASA.

Become a writer

Following the rise of criminology, many different views on punishment and its bases arose. In the 20th century,
French philosopher and historian, Michel Foucault in his book, Discipline and Punish, made a study
of criminalization or punishment as a coercive method of state control. He said that there are two types of
punishment: Monarchical and Disciplinary. He said in his work that the purpose of penalty was an indefinite
one, the problematization of the criminal behind his crime, the concern with a punishment that is a correction,
a therapy, a normalization, the division of the act of judgement between various authorities that are supposed
to measure, assess, diagnose, cure, transform individuals. According to Focault, this more modern concept of
penalty being a form of correction is one of the bases of penalty.
In modern times, punishment is said to be imposed for the purposes of: Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation
and Rehabilitation.
Retribution has gone a long from its ancient and very narrow definition of an eye for an eye. Such principle
had since then evolved to mean, proportionality of the penalty to the gravity of the offense committed. The
imposition of punishment is also seen as a deterrence in committing crimes. It is believed that by imposing a
penalty for a wrongdoing, other people will not be committing crimes because of fear of having to suffer
punishment. Incapacitation, on the other hand, means lessening the likelihood of the offender perpetrating an
offense so you commit him in an institution. Lastly, rehabilitation is said to be one of the rationale behind the
imposition of penalty. By rehabilitation it is meant that punishment must be used as an opportunity to make
some positive change in the offender.
Amongst the four philosophies behind the imposition of punishment, retribution is the most common justification
in the imposition of penalty. Majority of the countries in the world adhere, primarily, to retributive justice, such as
the Philippines, wherein retributive justice is the norm. However, due to increasing concern for human dignity,
restorative justice is gaining popularity. In fact the present Constitution recognizes the need to preserve human
dignity, thus:
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.
The Philippines has, likewise, adhered to such principle, imminent from its more recent legislation such as the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, which explicitly provided for restorative justice principle.
The imposition of punishment is brought about by the mandate in the constitution which provides:
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of
the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
In order to maintain peace and order within the territory, the State is empowered to make laws. However, such
authority is not unbridled because the Constitution itself provides for a proscription on the imposition of cruel
and unusual penalties, excessive fines and passing of an ex-post facto law. The same proscriptions are
mirrored in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, to which the Philippines adhere to.

Retributive justice vis-a-vis Restorative justice

Retributive justice has been the primary justification of imposing punishment in most countries. It pertains to the
old adage let the punishment fit the crime made popular by Cesario Beccaria or to the more popular an eye
for an eye, the dominant principle during the ancient times. Retributive Justice deals with proportionality of the
crime to the penalty to be imposed upon an offender.
Restorative Justice, on the other hand, deals with individualizing the penalty given to a wrongdoer, keeping in
mind that something must be done for the offender in order to reform him and keep him from doing crimes and
to effectively reintegrate him to society. Rehabilitation, reformation and reintegration are basic premises. The
rising interest on Restorative justice is brought about by the increased valuation and respect for human dignity.
The fundamental premise in a retributive paradigm is that crimes are injuries against the state, while restorative
justice emphasizes that crimes are more than offenses against the state, but primarily are violations against
people and relationships. In the retributive model, a determination of blame and administration of blame is
involved. On the other hand, in restorative justice, the interested parties, namely the offender, offended party
and the community, action, reconciliation and reassurance.

This essay is an example of a student's work

Disclaimer
This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example
of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Who wrote this essayBecome a Freelance Writer

Place an Order

In retributive system, determination about whether a crime was committed, who did it and how should he be
punished are the basic questions. It focuses on the offender and the crime that was committed and the penalty
that the state must impose. Similarly, restorative justice is concerned with accountability, albeit primarily to the
offended party and the community, and not to the State.
Statement of the Problem
Between the Retributive justice principles and Restorative justice paradigm, which is better suited for the
Philippines? What is more in keeping with the general welfare? Which between retributive and restorative
justice effectively addresses the value of human dignity despite it being a punishment? Consequently, will the
new paradigm work, if there is indeed a shift from retributive paradigm to restorative justice?
II. Objectives of the Study
The objective of this study is to re-examine the retributive justice theory as the primary justification of imposing
penalty, in light of the constitutional obligation of the State in affording the utmost respect for human dignity and
human rights.

Also, this study aims to determine, by comparing their values and principles, which between Retributive Justice
and Restorative Justice is a better fit, as basis of imposing penalty, in light of the constitutional provisions as
well as international instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory.
Lastly, to determine the effectivity of using Restorative Justice, as basis of penalty, by examining countries
which have adapted its principles.
III. Significance of the Study
The re-examination of the philosophies of punishment embodied in our penal laws will determine whether the
current legal framework complies with the changes in the relevant laws which it is dependent upon.
Upon the determination of compliance or non-compliance, necessary penal law reforms may be suggested to
best conform to the changes.
IV. Scope and Limitations
The study will focus only on Retributive and Restorative Justice principles, concerning criminal matters only.
The study will focus on the 1987 Constitution, specifically the provisions on the duty of the state to maintain
peace and order, respect human dignity and proscription on cruel and unusual penalties and excessive an only
and several fines, applicable penal laws , such as: the Revised Penal Code, the Death Penalty Law,
Indeterminate Sentence Law, Probation Law and Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, respectively.
The study will make use of Supreme Court decisions, pronouncements which have touch upon Retributive and
Restorative principles.
To better understand the development of Retributive and Restorative justice, the use of foreign materials,
American jurisprudence and International laws shall be extensively used.
Non-legal books and other reference materials were utilized.
V. Methodology/Organization of Thesis
The proponent primarily used the library in the Ateneo Professional Schools, the Rizal Library in the Loyola
Schools, as well as that of the Miguel de Benavides Library of the University of Santo Tomas in Manila.
Materials from the Internet were also used, as well as Academic Papers, Journals and legislative documents or
papers. Interview with a reputable authority in Criminal law was also conducted.
This thesis shall be organized by chapters.
The first chapter shall be the introductory chapter, which contains the background, objectives and significance
of the study, the scope and limitations, and the methodology or the organization of the thesis. The background
provides a brief discussion of the factual milieu of the study, which is done by providing a historical background
and the current state of things. The objectives and significance will catalogue what the proponent seeks to

achieve and what impact it will bring to the society. The limitations will set forth the constraints and applicability
of the study.
The second chapter is fully devoted to the purpose, scope, limitations, and sources of Criminal Law in the
Philippines. A discussion of crime, punishment and the Revised Penal Code was also done.
The third chapter contains an in depth discussion of the Retributive Justice Paradigm.
The fourth chapter contains an examination of the Restorative Justice Philosophy.
The fifth chapter contains the analysis of the author, after taking into consideration the relevant laws,
international instruments and other material documents.
Finally, chapter six contains the authors conclusion and recommendation.
VI. Definition of Terms
As found in the study, the following shall mean:
a. Code: when used in a sentence shall pertain to the Revised Penal Code.
b. Crime: for the purposes of the discussion, crimes shall be used synonymously with felony or offense.
c. Felony: for the purposes of the discussion, felonies shall be used synonymously with offense or crime.
d. Law: when used in a sentence, it shall pertain to the Revised Penal Code.
e. Offense: for the purposes of the discussion, offenses shall be used synonymously with felony or crime.

Find out more from UK Essays here: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/criminology/history-of-crime-andpunishment-criminology-essay.php#ixzz3TqhKRmRC

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/criminology/history-of-crime-and-punishmentcriminology-essay.php