2.2✅

• a lot of people believe that punishment is an effective way to prevent or reduce crime
• other people argue that offenders deserve to be punished anyway, regardless of whether or not this reduces crime
• in this topic we will discuss the different aims or purposes that punishment can have
• the different aims or purposes that punishment can have are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, public protection and reparation
• retribution is expressing society’s outrage at crime
• rehabilitation is making offenders change their behaviour
• deterrence is discouraging future offending
• public protection from offenders
• reparation is making good the harm caused by crime
• Retribution:

  • literally means paying back
  • involves inflicting punishment on an offender as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act 
  • it is based on the idea that criminals should get their ‘just deserts’, that offenders deserve to be punished + society is morally entitled to take its revenge, the offender should suffer for breaching societies moral code 
  • punishments should fit the crime: it should be equal or proportionate to the harm done
  • although retribution might have good effects (e.g. deterring potential offenders) it is really just a way for society to express their outrage at the offender, retribution is a justification for punishing crimes already committed not a way of preventing future ones 
  • e.g. hate crime like racially aggravated offences can higher the tariff sentence e.g. grievous bodily harm if racially motivated can be sentenced 7 years instead of the usual 5 years 
• Retribution-Theory:

  • right realists theories of criminality e.g. rational choice theory 
  • retribution assumes that offenders are rational actors who consciously choose to commit their crimes + are fully responsible for their actions 
• Criticisms of Retribution:

  • it can be argued that offenders deserve forgiveness, mercy or a chance to make amends not just punishment 
  • there is no real way do decide a proportionate penalty or ‘just deserts’ for each crime as there will always be disagreements on which crimes are more serious than others 
• Rehabilitation:

  • the idea that punishment can be used to reform or change offenders so they no longer offend + can go on to live a crime-free life 
  • they use various treatments programmes to change the offenders future behaviour by addressing issues which led to their offending:
  • anger management courses: for violent offenders e.g. Aggression Replacement Training or other cognitive behavioural therapy programmes 
  • drug treatment + testing orders: + programmes to treat alcohol dependence 
  • community sentences have requirements for offenders to engage in such programmes as a part of their sentence 
  • offenders have to actively want to change their lives, although a lot of resources + support is needed from therapists, probation officers + others to help achieve change 
• Rehabilitation-Theory:

  • individualistic theories of criminality see rehabilitation as a significant aim of punishment 
  • cognitive theories: favour cognitive behavioural therapies (cbt) to teach offenders to correct their thinking errors + biases that lead to aggressive or criminal behaviour 
  • skinners operant learning theory: supports the use of token economies to encourage prisoners to produce more acceptable behaviour 
• Criticisms of Rehabilitation:

  • right realists argue that rehabilitation has only limited success in that many offenders go on to re-offend even after undergoing programmes aimed at changing their behaviour 
  • marxists criticise rehabilitation programmes for shifting the responsibility for offending onto the individual offender’s failings rather than focusing on how capitalism leads some people to commit crime 
• Deterrence:

  • to deter someone from doing something is to put them off doing it 
  • the fear of being caught + punished may deter people from committing crime, deterrence can be either individual or general 
  • individual deterrence: uses punishment to deter the individual offender from re-offending, the punishment may convince the offender that it is not worth repeating the experience e.g. shown in the argument that ‘prison works’ is based partly on the idea that if sentences are tough enough, offenders will not want to go back to gain again 
  • general deterrence: aims at deterring society in general from breaking the law, if the public sees an individual offender being punished they will see what themselves will have to suffer if they commit a similar crime, in the past this was done through public punishments like execution or floggings so everyone could see the consequences of offending 
• Deterrence-Severity vs certainty:

  -> it was important to distinguish between the severity of punishment + the certainty of punishment 

  -> e.g. however severe the punishment might be for a particular offence, if theres a small chance of getting caught + convicted = it will be unlikely to deter many would-be offenders 

  -> e.g. theres a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment for committing a third domestic burglary, but only 5% of reported burglaries actually get a successful conviction, meaning that the likelihood of facing the punishment is very low

  -> if the offender is very likely to get caught, then even a mild punishment could be an effective deterrent 
• Deterrence-Theory:

  • rational choice theory: sees individuals as rational actors who weigh up the costs and benefits before deciding whether to offend, therefore severe punishments and a high chance of getting caught will deter offending 
  • social learning theory: if would-be offenders see a model (one of their peers for example) being punished for offending they will be less likely to imitate that behaviour 
• Criticisms of Deterrence:

  • 1/2 of all prisoners re-offend within a year of release suggesting that prison is not an effective deterrent 
  • how can you make the decision on how severe a punishment needs to be for it to be enough to deter a would be offender 
  • people who break laws they are seen as unjust and unlikely to be deterred by punishment
• Public Protection:

  • incapacitation: punishment may be used to protect the public from the further offending by incapacitating offenders, this is the use of punishment to remove the offenders physical ability to offend again 
  • there have been many different types of incapacitation policies at different times + places e.g.
  • execution of offenders: preventing them from committing any further crimes whatsoever 
  • cutting off the hands of thieves 
  • chemical castration of sex offenders 
  • curfews of electronic tagging to restrict the offenders movements + to prevent further offending 
• Public Protection-Imprisonment:

  • the main means of incapacitation in todays society, it is an important part of the claim that ‘prison works’ by taking offenders out of circulation, preventing them from committing any further crimes against the public 
  • incapacitation for public protection had influenced sentencing laws e.g. the Crime Sentencing Act 1997 where they introduced mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat offenders for example:
  • an automatic life sentence for a second serious sexual or violence offence 
  • Criminal Justice Act 2003: introduced the idea of ‘imprisonment for public protection’ (IPP) where courts were allowed to give an indeterminate sentences to a ‘dangerous’ offender who is convicted of certain serious violent or sexual offences 
  • US: ‘three strikes and you’re out’ laws were introduced in the 1990s
• Imprisonment-Theory:

  • biological theories: Lombroso argued that criminals are biologically different from the rest of the population + it is not possible to change or rehabilitate them, he favoured sending criminals into exile e.g. detaining them on islands away from the public, or others have favoured chemical or surgical castration to incapacitate sex offenders 
  • right realists: they see incapacitation as a way of protecting the public from crime 
• Criticisms of Public Protection:

  • incapacitation leads to longer sentences with little hope of release, meaning that is leads to a rising prison population + associated costs 
  • the ‘three strikes’ principle re-punishes individuals for their previous crimes 
  • it is unjust because it imprisons them for crimes that the law assumes they may commit in the future 
• Reparation:

  • involves the offender making amends for a wrong they have done, whether to an individual victim, society as a whole or both, harm done can be both material + social 
  • making amends for material damage includes: financial compensation to the victim e.g. paying the costs of repairing damage done to someones property, or unpaid work where they repay society through community payback where they remove graffiti off public buildings, this is imposed by the court as a part of a community order 
• Reparation-Restorative Justice:

  • making amends for the social damage done involved the offender recognising the wrongfulness of their actions 
  • this can be done through restorative justice schemes which bring offender + victim together often w/ help from a mediator 
  • allowing the victim to explain the impact the crime has had 
  • then the offender can come to appreciate the harm they have caused + express their remorse + seek forgiveness 
  • it helps bring closure to the victim and reintegrate the offender into society 
• Reparation-Theory:

  • labelling theory: favours restorative justice as a way of reintegrating offenders into mainstream society, by enabling them to show genuine remorse + it permits their reintegration + prevents them being pushed into secondary deviance 
• Criticisms of Reparation:

  • it does not work for all types of offence, compensation for damage to property or minor offences may be fairly straightforward, but one made for sexual or violent crimes: a rape victim may not want to face or forgive the rapist + reparation to homicide victims is impossible 
  •  some regard reparation as too soft a form of punishment that lets offenders off lightly