Final answer:
The necessity of severe punishment for offenders is a complex issue influenced by historical perspectives and the goals of the criminal justice system. Alternatives to harsh punishments have been found effective in certain cases, particularly for juveniles, and excessive punishments are not always correlated with lower crime rates. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, establishing an ethical boundary for sentencing practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'Offenders should receive severe punishment because of the nature of the crime committed' engages with the philosophy of the criminal justice system and its goals, including retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Historically, approaches to punishment have varied, from the retributive Code of Hammurabi to the modern considerations of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Factors such as the severity of the crime, social status, and potential for rehabilitation should influence sentencing. Excessive bail should not be required, as outlined in the Constitution to ensure fair treatment before trial. Studies have shown that deterrence can be effective, such as when sentences for gun crimes increased and gun crime decreased by 5%. However, deterrent methods such as the Scared Straight program have backfired, leading to higher crime rates among participants. Likewise, long-term imprisonment for lesser crimes has not been shown to significantly reduce overall crime rates. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration, particularly for juveniles, can be more effective in reducing recidivism and fostering rehabilitation. The debate over the correct level of punishment versus rehabilitation continues, reflecting divergent views on the best path towards a just and effective criminal justice system.