Today’s criminal system has four justifications for punishment; these justifications for punishment are Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Social Protection. Each term is defined in \Society the Basics Chapter 7 Deviance\ as the following *Retribution*: \“an act of moral vengeance by which society makes the offender suffer as much as the suffering caused by the crime,”\ *Deterrence*: “\the attempt to discourage criminality through the use of punishment,” \*Rehabilitation*: “\a program for reforming the offender to prevent later offenses,” \and\ \*Social Protection*: “\rendering an offender incapable of further offenses temporarily by imprisonment or permanently by execution\” (Macionis, J.J., 2006). The following paragraphs will explain each in further detail and address the history of each justification. Near the end an explanation as to the effectiveness of these justifications on society will be given.
Retribution being one of the first forms of punishment referring back to the bible even with the words “an eye for an eye” is where we will begin. Crime since the middle ages was considered an offense against not only society but God as well and that is upset the natural order of society as a whole. So it was the belief that punishment should reflect the crime being equal in harshness. This of course did nothing to make the offender a better member of society; however it is still popular today as a means of punishment. (Chapter 7, pp 182)
Deterrence came about in the eighteenth century when society deemed that anyone capable of rational though would clearly not commit a crime if they knew that the punishment for said crime would outweigh any of the benefits of committing said crime. In other words they would not be dumb enough to commit a crime when they knew that they would get in to way more trouble than it was worth to commit the crime. Deterrence was meant to stave off harsher punishments such as death in hopes the imprisonment would scare them off from committing the crime in the first place. (Chapter 7, pp 182-183)
Rehabilitation came up in the nineteenth century when sociologist saw that there was some correlation between criminals and their environments. They believed that if one could be subject to deviant behavior due to their upbringing and environment then they could be ‘taught’ to confirm to acceptable societal norms. Out of these theories came institutions geared to reforming criminals. Places such as reformatories and houses of corrections were implemented. Some offenders were sentenced to probation where they had to report to a probation officer and had to follow certain rules to avoid incarceration. Some where sent to military style ‘boot camps’ with the hope that hard work and military style discipline would reform these rejects of society. (Chapter 7, pp. 183)
Social Protection the fourth justification for punishment came about in an effort to protect society from violent criminals. In effect it has increased the amount of offenders being incarcerated in the United States today. At present 2 million detainees house the prison facilities as a result of the tougher laws and sanctions being enforced today. People do not want these criminals on the streets and see the only choice available to them is to keep them in prison. (Chapter 7. pp, 183)
Do these tougher laws or any of these four justifications for punishment work effectively to reduce the amount of crime in the United States? It is the belief of many that the answer to this question is no. According to a study done by Pizarro, J.M., Stenius, V.M.K., & Pratt, T entitled \Supermax Prisons Myths, Realities, and the Politics of Punishment in American Society. \The effects of these justifications of punishment on this society has caused damage. People are more concerned with getting even, retribution, than trying to find a solution to the deviant behavior that causes offenders to commit these crimes. In response to the misguided views of society prisons such as Supermax prisons are being built to further isolate criminals from society and in turn are causing further mental damage as well as deviant behavior. They are not rehabilitating these offenders and are increasing the odds of a person to become a repeat offender. Still society continues to place these offenders in these institutions and make the subject to a system that is not geared to helping find a solution but only to stave off the problem. (Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2006) According to Pizarro, J.M., Stenius, V.M.K., & Pratt, T“Although numerous factors contributed to the loss of faith in rehabilitation in the1970s, Martinson’s (1974) infamous review, which has been misread by most to indicate that nothing works in rehabilitation, provided an argument against rehabilitation not only for policy makers and practitioners but also for scholars who began reevaluating the goals of punishment. The reevaluation of rehabilitation created opportunities for other penal philosophies, culminating in the emergence of just deserts (von Hirsch,1976) as the leading penal goal in the United States (Bottoms, 1995; Garland, 2001) as well as a greater emphasis on deterrence and incapacitation. Although just deserts sought to ensure proportionality with a minimal level of punishment, the focus on desert and blameworthiness reestablished the legitimacy of a retributive discourse and increasingly punitive responses to crime (Garland, 2001). This occurred as penal policy became less concerned with achieving crime reduction through individualized sentencing and focused increasingly on fitting the punishment to the crime as prescribed in just-deserts theory. Within this structure, offenders’ social situations (e.g., poverty, lack of opportunity) were of minimal significance. People who broke the law were no longer seen as victims of the system (or society) that, with treatment, would change for the better. Instead, offenders were seen as blameworthy and deserving of punishment because they broke the law” (2006).
As President Bush stated in his 2004 State of the Union Address, “This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison.. . . America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.” This though is not the case for many ex offenders. Justifications for punishment such as retribution, deterrence and social protection do more to hinder offenders from becoming effective members of society; thereby reducing the effects of Rehabilitation. In the opinion of this researcher Rehabilitation is the best course of justification for punishment. Laws need to be passed allowing for Rehabilitation services to do their jobs effectively without the threat of retribution. Justifications such as retribution, deterrence, and social protection should be the last ditch effort for offenders who have exhausted all other methods of conforming to society and are beyond all hope of reform. If we can see our way clear to making these individuals better then society as a whole will benefit from reduced crime in our country.ReferencesMacionis, J.J., Chapter 7 Deviance. Society the Basics 8th Edition, Published by
Prentice-Hall Copyright 2006 Pearson Education, INC.
Pizarro, J.M., Stenius, V.M.K., & Pratt, T., Supermax Prisons Myths, Realities, and the
Politics of Punishment in American Society., Criminal Justice Policy Review Vol 17
(1) March 6-21, 2006, 2006 Sage Publications., Retrieved from EBSCOHost
September 17, 2006
Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K., & Blitz, C. L., Behavioral Health Problems, Ex-
Offender Reentry Policies, and the \
Adding your comment:
