澳洲论文：惩罚理论
澳洲论文：惩罚理论// a.alogObjectConfig.sample&&(h=!1)}h&&(f=b.createElement(c),f.async=!0,f.src=d,g=b.getElementsByTagName(c)[0],g.parentNode.insertBefore(f,g))}(window,document,”script”,”/hunter/alog/alog.min.js”,”alog”),void function(){function a(){}window.PDC={mark:function(a,b){alog(“speed.set”,a,b||+new Date),alog.fire&&alog.fire(“mark”)},init:function(a){alog(“speed.set”,”options”,a)},view_start:a,tti:a,page_ready:a}}();
void function(n){var o=!1;n.onerror=function(n,e,t,c){var i=!0;return!e&&/^script error/i.test(n)&&(o?i=!1:o=!0),i&&alog(“exception.send”,”exception”,{msg:n,js:e,ln:t,col:c}),!1},alog(“exception.on”,”catch”,function(n){alog(“exception.send”,”exception”,{msg:n.msg,js:n.path,ln:n.ln,method:n.method,flag:”catch”})})}(window);
// ]]>//
惩罚理论提供了一个框架，了解刑事机构（史葛，弗林，2014）。它有助于提供正确的方法，对理解的惩罚。惩罚是不是一个控制机制，但受社会（花环，1991）。已交付的不同观点的处罚。有些人喜欢涂尔干的都集中在集体良知和团结方面，而马克思理论侧重于经济状态和触发。惩罚的涂尔干的理论是基于社会道德原则。在界定犯罪的社会方面，犯罪的严重程度，犯罪的产生和社会的反应，这是非常重视的社会方面。犯罪与刑罚被认为很大程度上是通过集体的社会透镜（亚力山大& Smith，2005），犯罪和刑罚只能通过这种集体意识方面的定义？个人在这整个设置中的作用是什么？本文认为，涂尔干在处罚提供一个集体的角度惩罚理论不承认个人的道德规范的存在。
在犯罪的定义中，也在于对刑罚的定义。犯罪是一种行为或一组是这样设计的，它违反了一个人的情绪行为。这是犯罪，涂尔干的意义。在相同的情况下，涂尔干的观点对犯罪激情的惩罚作为反应。社会集体意识的犯罪与惩罚（史葛，弗林，2014）。这一集体良知的存在使犯罪者对人的冒犯。集体的良心是什么创造了人们的感情，在第一个地方。他们是共同的信念和共同的情绪。集体的良心是道德的界限，实际上是人的道德指南针。这是同一个集体的良心，保护人民免受犯罪。
澳洲论文：惩罚理论
Punishment theories deliver a framework for understanding penal institutions (Scott, & Flynn, 2014). It helps deliver a proper approach towards understanding punishments. Punishments are not a control mechanism but are shaped by society (Garland, 1991). Different perspectives on punishment have been delivered. Some of them like the Durkheimian have focused on the collective conscience and solidarity aspects, while Marxist theories focus on the economical state and its triggers. The Durkheim theory of Punishment is based on the principle of social morality. There is much emphasis on the social aspects in defining a crime, the severity of the crime, the threat that the crime generates and the reaction of the society towards it. Crime and punishments are viewed largely through a collective social lens (Alexander & Smith, 2005).Can crime and punishments be defined only through this collective conscience aspect? What is the role of the individual in this whole setup? This essay argues that Durkheim’s theory on punishment in delivering a collective perspective in punishments fails to acknowledge the presence of the individual moral code.
In the definition of crime lies the definition for punishment also. Crime is an act or a set of actions that are so designed that it offends an individual’s sentiments. This is Durkheim’s meaning of crime. In the same context, Durkheim views punishment as a passionate reaction against the criminal. Social collective conscience links the crime and the punishment (Scott, & Flynn, 2014). The presence of this collective conscience is what makes crime offensive to people. The collective conscience is what creates the sentiments of the people in the first place. They are the shared beliefs and common sentiments. The collective conscience is what delivers moral boundaries and is in fact the moral compass of people. It is the same collective conscience that protects the people from crime.
