Some argue that the punishment should be the purpose of the system. For the one who committed the crime, payback should be brought back to him/her via the justice system. This form of retributive punishment also marks an objective expression of abhorrence towards violations of law. The degree of punishment should be determined by the severity of the crime. For instance, petty crimes which are should involve a fine, counselling or a short 30-day jail term. While more serious crimes, which involve violent crimes like murder, rape and other aggravating crimes should incur many years or a life sentence. Punishment should clearly enforce the concrete message that crime is wrong and that criminals, who violate the law, will be brought to order. If there is no punishment, then it means there are no consequences for the wrong that has been committed. Under the causality principle, every cause has an effect, and every action should have a consequence. This should be especially true for the actions of criminals, which violate and detriment the laws or rules of society out of their own choices or decisions. Hence, punishment, being the thing that most clearly and concretely illustrates the abhorrence towards and payment or consequences of crime, should be the purpose of the justice system.
Critics may disagree with the above stand. If punishment is the purpose of the system, the only message it is sending out is that the justice system is an unforgiving one, which will ultimately lead to its own stagnation and demise. Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind.” In a situation as that of a crime committed, with punishment, nobody benefits. What has happened has already happened. It is a lose-lose situation, not capable of bringing true comfort to the victims of crime, nor giving the perpetrator of the crime his/her appropriate closure. On the other hand, if there are developments towards rehabilitation, at the very least, with a forgiving mindset, the criminal is given the potential to possibly fit back into society and redeem oneself again, and that could be a possible benefit out of the entire situation. While punishment is still necessary to some extent to show that wrongdoings have consequences, but, in the end, can the criminal gain anything out of it? The practical answer is, No!
Defenders of punishment argue that punishment should be the purpose of the system, because it also has deterrent properties, and can subsequently best maintain order in society. With the presence of punishment, it prevents potential criminals from becoming actual criminals. Even for offenders are less likely to repeat their crimes again, as they become “Once bitten, twice shy”. Since prevention is better than cure, punishment, being able to prevent crime, thus best maintains law and order in society, and should be the purpose of the justice system. Specifically, with punishment, it spells out what is acceptable and unacceptable within the law, serving as the “threat” as to what will happen if the law is breached. Countries like Singapore that maintain a strict system of punishment have clearly demonstrated that punishment does help contain crime, particularly socially damaging crime like drug trafficking. Punishment should be the main purpose of justice. It is a simple and effective message.