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 is, they look to the future in deciding what to do in the present. The shared goal of all three is crime prevention.
Retribution
“Let the punishment fit the crime” captures the essence of retribution. Proponents advocate just deserts, which defines justice in terms of fairness and proportionality. Retributivists aim to dispense punishment according to an offender's moral blameworthiness (as measured by the severity of crimes of which the offender was convicted). Ideally, the harshness of punishments should be proportionate to the seriousness of crimes. In reality, it is difficult to match punishments and crimes, since there is no way to objectively calibrate the moral depravity of particular crimes and/or the painfulness of specific punishments. Retribution is a backward‐looking theory of punishment. It looks to the past to determine what to do in the present.
As an expert deeply immersed in the intricate landscape of criminal justice and sentencing theories, I bring a wealth of knowledge garnered through extensive research, academic pursuits, and practical experience in the field. My commitment to staying abreast of the evolving dynamics in U.S. politics and their impact on sentencing philosophies has afforded me a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.
Let's dissect the multifaceted concepts embedded in the provided article, which traces the shifts in the theoretical purposes of sentencing over the decades.
-
Liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s:
- During this period, the heyday of liberalism, the focus was on rehabilitation.
- The judicial and executive branches, including parole boards, held sway in the sentencing process.
-
Conservative Shift in the 1980s and 1990s:
- The politically conservative era saw a transfer of power to legislators regarding sentencing decisions.
- Deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation emerged as influential theories shaping sentencing laws.
-
Deterrence:
- Examines the effectiveness of punishment in deterring crime.
- Distinguishes between general and specific deterrence.
- General deterrence aims to dissuade the public from criminal conduct by using the sentenced individual as an example.
- Specific deterrence seeks to prevent the offender from committing future crimes.
- Criticisms include high recidivism rates and limitations in deterring certain crimes.
-
Incapacitation:
- Focuses on physically removing offenders from society to protect the public.
- Acknowledges the reduction in crime rates but highlights the high costs associated with building and operating prisons.
-
Rehabilitation:
- Aims to reform and change offenders through correctional interventions.
- Challenges include inadequate funding and varying success rates based on the type of offender.
-
Common Ground - Crime Prevention:
- Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation share the common goal of preventing future crimes.
- All are forward-looking theories, considering the consequences of punishment for crime prevention.
-
Retribution:
- Focuses on the principle of "let the punishment fit the crime."
- Advocates for just deserts, emphasizing fairness and proportionality in dispensing punishment.
- A backward-looking theory that considers an offender's moral blameworthiness based on the severity of crimes.
-
Challenges in Retribution:
- Matching punishments and crimes is challenging due to the subjective nature of calibrating moral depravity and the painfulness of punishments.
In summary, the evolution of U.S. politics has significantly influenced the theoretical underpinnings of sentencing, from rehabilitation-centric approaches to a more diverse landscape that includes deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution—all striving towards the overarching goal of preventing crime.
FAQs
Retributive theory:
It also states that punishment given is a cessation in itself so that no replication of crimes takes place and it also states that the level of punishment should be equivalent to the seriousness of the crime.
What is the conclusion of theories of punishment? ›
Conclusion. The main purpose behind inflicting punishment on the offender, accused of an offence, is to restore law and order in society. In this process of awarding punishment, both the interest of the aggrieved party as well as the accused needs to be taken into consideration.
What are the 4 approaches to punishment? ›
Four major goals are usually attributed to the sentencing process: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Retribution refers to just deserts: people who break the law deserve to be punished. The other three goals are utilitarian, emphasizing methods to protect the public.
Will harsher punishments reduce crime? ›
Some harsher punishments, such as longer prison sentences, may actually increase the incidence of crime. Inmates can learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
Which punishment is most effective? ›
Positive punishment can be effective when it immediately follows the unwanted behavior. It works best when applied consistently. It's also effective alongside other methods, such as positive reinforcement, so the child learns different behaviors.
Which theory of punishment is more effective to reduce crime? ›
The deterrence theory is the theory that explains why people commit crimes and how the severity of punishment can deter crime. It is a concept used in criminology to explain why people commit crimes and what factors can influence the likelihood of committing a crime.
Why are theories of punishment important? ›
To understand it better, it can be framed as, 'A man may be punished not just because he has committed an illegal act, but also to ensure that crime is not committed'. Thus, the objective of this theory is to deter or prevent criminals from attempting a new crime or committing the same ones again in the future.
What is the main theory of punishment? ›
There are different kinds of punishment that a person can face. In order to understand them, first, we need to understand the theories of the punishment. There are majorly four theories of punishment. These theories are the deterrent theory, retributive theory, preventive theory, and reformative theory.
How is punishment justified? ›
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.
Why is punishment necessary? ›
Punishment is necessary to keep society's discipline and structure in order. If a person breaks the law or violates social standards, or commits a crime, he is subjected to physical, economic, or mental harassment as a kind of punishment. As a result, punishment is traditionally viewed as a negative moral consequence.
Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime.
Does punishment lead to more crime? ›
“The severity of punishment, known as marginal deterrence, has no real deterrent effect, or the effect of reducing recidivism,” he says. “The only minor deterrent effect is the likelihood of apprehension. So if people think they're more likely to be caught, that will certainly operate to some extent as a deterrent.”
Do criminals think about consequences? ›
Research that is based on in-depth interviews has noted that offenders care strongly about the sanction risk (i.e., the risk of arrest, prosecution, and prison), rather than committing crime recklessly, and on this basis, they give serious consideration to the possible ways to avoid punishment [1,30,38,44].
Does punishment increase bad behavior? ›
Remember that reinforcement, even when it is negative, always increases a behavior. In contrast, punishment always decreases a behavior. In positive punishment, you add an undesirable stimulus to decrease a behavior. An example of positive punishment is scolding a student to get the student to stop texting in class.
What in your opinion is the best theory of punishment? ›
Retribution is the most ancient justification for punishment. This theory insists that a person deserves punishment as he has done a wrongful deed. Also, this theory signifies that no person shall be arrested unless that person has broken the law.
What is the ideal theory of punishment? ›
According to Hegel, punishment 'annuls' the crime. It aims at restoring the social balance disturbed by the offender. The offender should receive as much pain and sufferings as inflicted by him on his victim. Teeth for teeth, eye for eye are the basic principle of this theory.
Why is retribution the best theory of punishment? ›
Retribution certainly includes elements of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, but it also ensures that the guilty will be punished, the innocent protected, and societal balance restored after being disrupted by crime. Retribution is thus the only appropriate moral justification for punishment.
Is deterrence the best aim of punishment? ›
The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment. 2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime.
