Final answer:
This model of the death penalty is associated with retributive justice, suggesting that punishment should be proportional to the crime. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty must be applied carefully, and cannot be used for those under 18 at the time of their crime. The efficacy and morality of capital punishment remain heavily debated in the context of crime deterrence and fair treatment.
Step-by-step explanation:
The model suggesting that offenders should be punished in a manner commensurate with the severity of the crime is closely related to the concept of retributive justice, where punishments are proportional to the crimes committed. This has been a subject of debate throughout history, as seen in the Code of Hammurabi's eye-for-an-eye principle and the evolution of capital punishment laws. Currently, in the United States, the death penalty is a controversial subject, with the Supreme Court ruling in cases like Proffitt v. Florida that any death penalty statute must involve the comparison of aggravating and mitigating factors to determine if a death sentence is appropriate.
When we consider crimes that historically warranted the death penalty, such as treason, murder, piracy, and arson, and compare them to our present standards, it is evident that dramatic reforms have taken place. Public executions, once common, are now regarded as barbarous, and the push for a fairer criminal justice system has led to the Eighth Amendment, which ensures protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
In the context of modern justice, there is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. The Supreme Court has held that the death penalty may not be applied to those who were minors at the time of the crime, amidst concerns regarding the fairness and the rehabilitation aspect of punishment. Additionally, discussions about morality and justice emerge, particularly when considering retribution versus a reduction in overall crime rates.