Retributivism is the act of proving that the punishment a person is subject to because of the crime committed is right. Retributivism seeks to justify punishment other that the outcome of the punishment at the end of the sentence. Retributive floor is the concept that is used to determine the amount of punishment one should be given by letting for example an offender serve the first years then determine whether it is deserved or he/she should serve the remaining five or so years. This theory is also known as the lower limit. Retributive ceiling as known as upper limit and it is the type of concept that allows an offender to face full amount of years sentenced in order to fully pay for the crime that he/she as committed but the time served should also not exceed the time deserved for the crime (Heffernan, 2014).
International homicide is a serious crime that once investigated the offender should be sentenced accordingly and depending on the fact that it is a crime committed internationally meaning it is outside the offender’s home country then it should be given much consideration as to whether lower limit or upper limit should be the ideal concept to use in order to arrive at the best form of sentence. Retributive floor would mean that giving a specific amount of time to observe the offender who in this case has taken a life of a fellow human therefore subjecting himself to a serious crime and one that should not go unpunished in what so ever way.
Retributive ceiling theory will subject the offender to serve all the deserved years in order to pay back for the life taken and whether the offender will get to learn from the sentence for the crime committed does not matter. By serving all the years the crime will be fully paid by the offender facing the consequences the hard way and therefore allowing justice prevail and letting the affected victims find justice for the loss of their loved one.
My conclusions are based on the fact that the crime committed is international homicide and the fact that retributive ceiling is more appropriate way of punishing homicide since it is one life for another. Retributive floor lets the offender serve a portion of the whole sentence then determine whether it is deserved when we clearly know that the life he/she took cannot be brought back therefore why give the offender a chance to weigh his/her deserved sentence yet he/she should be living by the consequences of the crime committed.
The two concept are working because not all crimes committed face the same sentence therefor letting the two be used to determine what concept should be used whenever the sentence is passed would be ideal. Some crimes make it hard for a specific period of time to be passed as the final sentence therefore by allowing retributive floor concept to be used to weigh how appropriate the time served is realistic whereas for other serious crimes like terrorism for example involves the offender living by consequences without getting an option to determine whether the time given is deserved.
Heffernan, W. C. (2014) Dimensions of Justice: U.S.AJones & Bartlett Learning