CJ 100 Lecture 62: Theories of Punishment
Theories of Punishment
Changes in U.S. politics have caused shifts in the theoretical purposes of sentencing. During the
heyday of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s, the judicial and executive branches (for example,
parole boards) wielded power in sentencing. Legislators designed sentencing laws with
rehabilitation in mind. More recently, during the politically conservative 1980s and 1990s,
legislators seized power over sentencing, and a combination of theories—deterrence, retribution,
and incapacitation—have influenced sentencing laws.
Deterrence
Can fear discourage crime? There has been much debate over whether deterrence
works. Proponents assert that punishment deters if it is administered with celerity
(swiftness), certainty, and severity. A distinction needs to be drawn between general
versus specific deterrence. General deterrence uses the person sentenced for a crime
as an example to induce the public to refrain from criminal conduct, while specific
deterrence punishes an offender to dissuade that offender from committing crimes in
the future. Critics point to the high recidivism(relapse into crime) rates of persons
sentenced to prison as evidence of the lack of effectiveness of specific deterrence.
Critics also note that there are limits to the impact of general deterrence. Some crimes,
such as crimes of passion and crimes committed while under the influence of drugs,
can't be deterred because their perpetrators don't rationally weigh the benefits versus
the costs (which include punishment) before breaking the law. Finally, research
evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of punishment is weak.
Incapacitation
A popular reason for punishment is that it gets criminals off the streets and protects the
public. The idea is to remove an offender from society, making it physically impossible
(or at least very difficult) for him or her to commit further crimes against the public while
serving a sentence. Incapacitation works as long as the offenders remain locked up.
There is no question that incapacitation reduces crime rates by some unknown degree.
The problem is that it is very expensive. Incapacitation carries high costs not only in
terms of building and operating prisons, but also in terms of disrupting families when
family members are locked up.
Rehabilitation
“Let the punishment fit the criminal” expresses the rehabilitative
ethic. Rehabilitation calls for changing the individual lawbreaker through correctional
interventions, such as drug treatment programs.‐
Common ground
But evaluations of correctional treatment show it doesn't consistently prevent or reduce
crime. Why has rehabilitation failed? Funding has been inadequate, so the full
effectiveness of rehabilitation hasn't been tested. Furthermore, certain criminals—such
as perpetrators of nonviolent crimes and first time offenders—are more likely to be ‐
successfully rehabilitated than repeat offenders and violent criminals.
Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation are all arguments that look to the
consequences of punishment. They are all forward looking theories of punishment. That‐
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Changes in u. s. politics have caused shifts in the theoretical purposes of sentencing. During the heyday of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s, the judicial and executive branches (for example, parole boards) wielded power in sentencing. Legislators designed sentencing laws with rehabilitation in mind. More recently, during the politically conservative 1980s and 1990s, legislators seized power over sentencing, and a combination of theories deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation have influenced sentencing laws. There has been much debate over whether deterrence works. Proponents assert that punishment deters if it is administered with celerity (swiftness), certainty, and severity. A distinction needs to be drawn between general versus specific deterrence. General deterrence uses the person sentenced for a crime as an example to induce the public to refrain from criminal conduct, while specific deterrence punishes an offender to dissuade that offender from committing crimes in the future.
