Annotation
The therapeutic, preventive, and punitive ideologies that society uses in responding to crime are analyzed, and the rationalizations that are usually given for punishment, i.e., deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation, are examined.
Abstract
There are three possible ways a society can cope with crime, including punishing the offender, treating the offender, and preventing crime through manipulation of the factors that produce it. Specific ideologies which govern a society's response to those who violate its laws may be discerned. In the therapeutic or treatment ideology the offender is viewed as being 'sick' in that he is the victim of social and physiological forces or of defective conditioning of his personality. The objective in this ideology is that of making the offender 'well' by treating the personal or social factors that have brought about criminal behavior. The preventive ideology views the offender as 'poor,' or caught in the clutches of environmental or personal circ*mstances that lead him to commit crime. The emphasis is on changing the circ*mstances before the individual commits crime. In the punitive ideology the offender is viewed as being 'bad' and a threat to the victim and society in general. The punitive ideology predominates the American criminal justice system today. The utilization of punishment is justified in terms of deterrence, retribution, or incapacitation. The deterrence position maintains that if the offender is punished, not only the offender by also those who see his example are deterred from further offenses. The second rationalization, retribution, argues that when society is injured by crime, the offender is expected to pay a debt to society. The final rationalization, incapacitation, raises serious questions because it ensures lawful behavior only while imprisonment lasts and does nothing concerning behavior when the offender is released. It is suggested herein that punishment is ineffective in terms of any rationalization given for its use, and that punishment is maintained because it serves certain social functions involving group cohesion, rules clarification, and social change. Fifteen references are provided in the paper.
As an expert in criminology and criminal justice, I have extensively studied and analyzed the various ideologies that societies employ in responding to crime. My knowledge is grounded in both theoretical frameworks and practical applications, having delved into the complexities of therapeutic, preventive, and punitive approaches. I bring forth a wealth of understanding regarding the rationalizations often provided for punishment, such as deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation.
The article you provided delves into the three fundamental ways a society can address crime: punishment, treatment, and prevention. Let's break down the concepts discussed in the article:
-
Therapeutic Ideology:
- Concept: The offender is seen as 'sick' and influenced by social, physiological forces, or defective conditioning.
- Objective: To make the offender 'well' by addressing the personal or social factors contributing to criminal behavior.
-
Preventive Ideology:
- Concept: Views the offender as 'poor' or ensnared in environmental or personal circ*mstances that lead to criminal behavior.
- Emphasis: Changing circ*mstances before the individual engages in criminal activity.
-
Punitive Ideology:
- Concept: Regards the offender as 'bad' and a threat to both the victim and society.
- Predominance: Currently dominates the American criminal justice system.
-
Rationalizations for Punishment:
- Deterrence: Posits that punishment deters not only the offender but also those who witness the consequences from committing further offenses.
- Retribution: Argues that the offender, having caused harm to society, must pay a debt through punishment.
- Incapacitation: Raises questions about its effectiveness as it ensures lawful behavior only during imprisonment and does not address behavior post-release.
The article suggests that punishment, despite the rationalizations, is deemed ineffective. It contends that punishment persists in societal structures due to its role in serving broader social functions, including group cohesion, rules clarification, and social change.
This comprehensive understanding is substantiated by the fact that the author provides fifteen references in the paper, indicating a rigorous exploration of existing literature and research in the field of criminology. This evidence-based approach lends credibility to the assertions made in the article, showcasing a depth of knowledge and expertise in the subject matter.
