The Goals of Punishment: Understanding Criminal Justice Theory

What Are The Goals Of Punishment?

Have you ever wondered what specific reasons have led humans to develop legal systems with specific punishments for particular criminal offenses? Criminal punishment can have a variety of motivations, from preventing future crime and reforming criminal behavior to achieving a version of justice and fostering an environment where people can repair their wrongdoing. Understanding the impetus behind particular punishments can lead to a greater comprehension of the criminal justice system.

Punishment theories and their goals

Punishment looks different across cultures and history. For the purposes of this article, we’ll elaborate on the different types of punishments currently sanctioned in modern societies. Understanding why specific punishments are levied against certain offenders and their impacts on society may help those navigating the mental health challenges associated with involvement in the justice system.

Deterrence

The goal of deterrence is to prevent future crime. A deterrence approach to criminal punishment attempts to accomplish this goal by creating punishments that are so unpleasant that they deter people from committing any sort of wrongful act because of the fear of punishment.

The philosophy of deterrence splits into two sub-categories: specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence focuses on deterring an individual who has already committed a crime from committing the same crime again in the future. General deterrence focuses on making an example of people convicted of crimes in the hopes of creating a society-wide aversion to criminal behavior.

Punishments associated with deterrence are often harsh and may be considered disproportionate to the crime. One of the more well-known deterrence efforts in the United States is the implementation of mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes associated with using and selling controlled substances, implemented during the Reagan administration’s “War on Drugs.”

Supporters of deterrence philosophies argue that any action that could prevent future crimes is justified, even if it means potentially draconian sentences for lower-level offenses. Detractors of the deterrence system point to research indicating that deterrence may not reduce crime levels and argue that over-punishing is inhumane.

Incapacitation

Like deterrence, incapacitation aims to prevent future crime but with a slightly different motivation. Deterrence hopes to create unpleasant punishments to inspire both convicted persons and laypeople to choose not to commit crimes. Incapacitation aims to remove convicted people’s abilities to commit crimes, so choice wouldn’t be a factor.

Incapacitation is based on the belief that the criminal justice process is morally obligated to prevent convicted persons from re-offending – and that such prevention is possible. Punishments involving incapacitation typically restrict people’s freedoms or abilities and can look similar to punishments implemented through deterrence. The most striking example of incapacitation is the death penalty, though house arrest, incarceration, electronic monitoring systems, and curfews are also forms of restricting convicted people.

Critics of incapacitation point out that while it may be effective at preventing some crimes (research indicates that it may reduce property crime, but not violent crime), it is inherently unethical to punish a person not based on what they have done but based on what others believe they may do. Incapacitation has also been linked to the rising rate of mass incarceration in the United States, disproportionately impacting people of color and those of lower socioeconomic status.

Retribution

Unlike deterrence and incapacitation, the goal of retribution is not to prevent crime but to achieve justice. Retributive theory argues that when people break the law, they are making a conscious, rational choice and deserve a similar or worse punishment relative to the impact of their crime.

This “eye for an eye” mentality argues that the pain of the punishment should match the pain of the crime. One clear example of retribution is the use of the death penalty for convicted murderers, based on the argument that those who kill others deserve to be killed themselves.

Retributive philosophy is a common component of several religious traditions, but it may raise ethical concerns in modern society. Critics of retribution argue that it is not an effective way to prevent crime and that research indicates many people affected by crimes do not find satisfaction in retributive justice.

The practice also raises questions about how to make punishments proportional to crimes, what can be conceived of as “justice,” how to determine the severity level of a crime or its associated punishment, and if societal and cultural influences and nuances need to be considered. Retribution can incite a fundamental debate about whether crime is a conscious choice or if societal factors lead certain people to commit crimes. For example, is it just to punish someone for stealing food if they are starving?

Rehabilitation

The goal of rehabilitation is partially to prevent future crime, but it is more about changing criminal behavior. Rehabilitative theory takes a more holistic view of crime and punishment than retributive theory, arguing that crime is mainly the result of societal circumstances and external pressures, not individual choices.

People already disadvantaged in society are more likely to commit crimes. Rehabilitation argues that if everyone had the tools to succeed, some people would no longer view crime as their only solution. Punishment for crimes should not be about inducing agony but making a change for the better.

Examples of rehabilitative practices include mental health counseling, skills training, enrollment in educational and vocational programs, and treatment center placement for those with substance use issues or other behavioral health challenges.

Critics of rehabilitative programs argue they focus too much on reforming individual behavior, not the societal forces that potentially led to the crime in the first place, and that rehabilitative theory is a bit of an over-correction, assigning too much of the blame for crime on society and not enough on the individual.

Restorative justice/reparations

Restorative justice has the same goal as retribution: justice. However, restorative justice and retribution approach the concept of justice in fundamentally different ways. Retributive theory argues that since crime causes pain, justice for a crime should involve inflicting the same level of pain on the perpetrator as was experienced by the survivor or affected person.

Proponents of restorative justice, on the other hand, argue that justice should not be about both the survivor and the perpetrator experiencing equal levels of pain but about the perpetrator doing what they can to alleviate the pain they caused the affected person.

Restorative justice often involves the use of reparations, which can include fixing or returning damaged property for property-related crimes, compensating a person for their loss or legal expenses related to the crime, attending mediation, sitting in on a community sentencing circle, or providing services to the survivor or the community as a whole, if the survivor prefers it. This approach focuses on mending relationships and addressing the harm caused by the crime in a way that promotes healing and reconciliation, rather than perpetuating cycles of pain and retribution. It emphasizes dialogue, mutual understanding, and community involvement.

In summary, the goals of punishment within modern criminal justice systems encompass a range of philosophies, each with its own advantages and ethical considerations. Deterrence and incapacitation focus on crime prevention; retribution seeks justice through proportional punishment; rehabilitation prioritizes behavioral change; and restorative justice aims to heal the wounds caused by crime. These various goals often overlap or compete, reflecting the complexities of balancing societal protection, individual rights, and fairness.

Understanding these diverse objectives is crucial for anyone engaging with or affected by the justice system, as it highlights the many factors that influence how and why punishment is imposed. As societies evolve, so too does the conversation about which goals should take precedence and how to best achieve a system that is just, effective, and humane for all involved.