Theoretical Analysis of Some Punishment Paradigms in the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Demands for criminal justice delivery through instrumentality of punishments have remained a contentious issue. The philosophical grounds in which punishment paradigms were anchored have continued to generate controversial debates not only within the criminal justice circle but also within the wider public oversight. This paper examined the contending theoretical backgrounds through which criminal justice delivery had been operating over the years. It x-rayed the contextual application of some major punishment paradigms and equally highlighted on their drawbacks. The methodology used was based on the secondary sources from the literatures. The theories examined ranged from the utilitarian theory of punishment, the deterrence theory, the retributive theory, the pure consequential penal theory, side-constrained consequentialism theory, defiance, the Kantian prohibition and rehabilitation theories of punishments which were indications that punishment of crimes had taken many pathways in an effort to safeguard the society. To a reasonable extent, the above theories have contributed to the understanding of administration of criminal justice worldwide. However, the criticism that have trailed the existing punishment paradigms, indicate that much is still needed in the search for balanced criminal justice delivery in the area of punishment mechanisms. This necessitated this paper to argue for a wake-up call to scholars to postulate a theoretical framework that will align with the contemporary criminal justice delivery demands and for policy makers for a paradigm shift by legislation to meet the present demands and challenges.