Criminal Justice Practice Exam

The predominant justification for punishment from biblical times through the 18th century was retribution, which centers on the concept of moral vengeance. This perspective suggests that punishment is a form of societal response to crime, serving as a means of balancing the scales of justice. The idea is rooted in the belief that wrongdoers should face consequences proportionate to their offenses, restoring moral equilibrium.

Historically, retribution has deep roots in religious texts and ancient legal systems, where principles of "an eye for an eye" were often applied to enforce social order and ensure that breaches of law did not go unpunished. It emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and moral accountability, asserting that offenders deserve punishment for the wrongs they committed.

While rehabilitation, deterrence, and restoration may have their own importance in various contexts, they became more prominent only later in the evolution of criminal justice philosophies. Rehabilitation focuses on reforming the offender, deterrence aims to prevent future crimes through fear of punishment, and restoration emphasizes repairing the harm done and involving the community in the justice process. These approaches emerged as society's understanding of crime and punishment evolved, particularly with the rise of Enlightenment thinking in the late 18th century, which began to challenge purely retributive models