Four Common Justifications for Criminal Punishment

Have you ever wondered why we, as a society, are so quick to punish criminal offenders? The automatic response might be . . . because they did something wrong and broke the law. However, if you delve deeper into the reasons we punish offenders, we find numerous justifications for this punishment. "Most criminal justice scholars agree [though] that there are four primary justifications for criminal punishment" (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 206): (1) retribution, (2) deterrence, (3) incapacitation, and (4) rehabilitation (Cotton, 2000). To answer this perplexing question, let us consider each of these justifications individually, as well as how they relate to one another in combating crime in the U.S.

Justification #1: Retribution

First, retribution is an ancient justification for criminal punishment. Basically, retribution in our society has its roots in Old Testament law, which dictates that offenders should be punished in an equal manner reflecting their crime: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 206). It is a basic human instinct to want to get even when wronged by another. And it is ingrained deep within us that punishment is necessary and inherently merited when an individual commits a wrong. Ultimately, if a person chooses to violate the laws of society, he has created a debt to his victim(s) or society as a whole and therefore, must pay for his actions before the wrong can be corrected. In the end, this aspect of punishment is a indispensable part of our criminal justice system, especially since retribution helps satisfy our natural desire for vengeance, which if left unchecked, could result in limitless additional harm as each act used to "right" the wrong would only result in further wrong and thus further need for vengeance (Cotton, 2000; The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 206-207).

Justification #2: Deterrence

Next, a second traditional purpose of criminal punishment is deterrence. This second justification for punishing offenders is much more logical than retribution. While retribution tends to feed off of primal human emotions and instincts, deterrence relies on logical analysis of basic human behavior. Essentially, people tend to avoid things that they know are going to be unpleasant. Therefore, if an individual knows for certain that he will be punished if he is caught doing something wrong, he is much less likely to commit a crime (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 209). There are actually two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence refers to the idea that if people see criminals being punished for their offenses, it will reduce the likelihood that they themselves will engage in similar behavior. Specific deterrence, on the other hand, involves using punishment against criminals for past offenses to discourage them from future criminal behavior. Overall, deterrence aims to use punishment to restrain the behavior of individual citizens (both innocent and guilty) to protect our society as a whole (Cotton, 2000).

Justification #3: Incapacitation

The third of the primary justifications for criminal punishment is incapacitation. Incapacitation is similar to deterrence in that it utilizes punishment to protect society from crime. However, unlike deterrence, incapacitation does not address the innocent, just the guilty. This purpose of criminal punishment employs a direct restriction of behavior to prevent the criminal from repeating their behavior. The traditional form of incapacitation measures is, of course, imprisonment in jails and prisons. But in reality, both probation and execution are other forms of incapacitation. Incapacitation ultimately aims to protect the innocent from crime by directly removing the offender from mainstream society, whether for a short time or permanently (Cotton, 2000; The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 207-208).

Justification #4: Rehabilitation

Finally, we have a more modern justification of punishment: rehabilitation. "Rehabilitation calls for the improvement of the criminal for his own benefit and to reduce the probability that he will offend again" (Cotton, 2000, The Usually Articulated Purposes, the Relationships Among Them, and Why Purposes Matter section). This purpose of punishment is actually a very controversial and unpopular tool for addressing crime in the U.S. Although the general public is very favorable of rehabilitation efforts within the criminal justice system, few corrections facilities actually have programs that are specifically designed to deal with the underlying causes of criminal behavior (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 211-212).

Too often, crime has been turned into a political issue, creating a yo-yoing effect from one corrections approach to another. Also, a number of negative reports were published during the 1960s and 1970s that created an overall pessimistic opinion of rehabilitation programs among corrections officials (The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 211-212). But, with corrections facilities steadily filling up far past their maximum capacities across the U.S., rehabilitation may prove to be an essential part of the future of corrections in America, addressing such underlying causes of crime as psychological problems and addiction (Cotton, 2000; The drug trade, 2004-2005, p. 202-206).

Ideal Outcome vs. Reality

Ideally, people in the U.S. desire "a criminal justice system that apprehends and visits harm upon the guilty (punishment), makes offenders more virtuous (rehabilitation), dissuades would-be offenders from criminal pursuits (deterrence), protects innocent citizens from being victimized by convicted criminals (incapacitation), and enables most criminals to return as productive citizens to the bosom of the free community (reintegration)" (Colorado Technical University Online, 2005, Question #4). But in reality, all of these aspects of punishment can interfere with one another. Therefore, it is often necessary to focus on one primary purpose of punishment in a case to bring justice to the victim(s) and society (Cotton, 2000).

Conclusion

Ultimately, I strongly feel that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of corrections in America. I have personal experience of how the other three primary justifications of punishment have done nothing to change the behavior of offenders. My father had a very good friend that received serious injuries to his legs that caused him horrible pain. His doctors prescribed him strong prescription painkillers to try to help him cope with this pain. However, eventually, he became addicted to them and tried every way possible to gain more medication to feed his habit, even though his injuries had healed. He went from doctor to doctor getting different narcotic painkillers since he was taking many times the number of pills that were meant to last him an entire month. Eventually, he ran out of doctors, and he just was not getting a strong enough dosage that would satisfy his addiction.

As a result, he decided to sell his lower-dosage prescriptions to others so he could buy other medications that were much stronger. This went on successfully for a few months, but then, the man he normally bought these illegal prescription drugs off of was caught and sent to jail. And his dealer decided to give authorities the names of his regular customers, one of which was my father's friend. Suffice it to say, they used an undercover agent to approach my father's friend and arrested him for trying to buy illegal prescription drugs.

In the end, he spent a long stint in a state correctional facility and is currently on parole. However, I know for a fact that this guy violated the terms of his parole as soon as he left the parole office. He went immediately to a bar where he knew he could obtain illegal painkillers, sat down with a shot of vodka, chewed up the pills, and chased it down with the alcohol. In the end, it is quite clear to me that no matter how long this man spends in prison, his behavior will never change until his drug addiction is addressed. Hence, I cannot see how corrections in America can truly protect our society until something is done to incorporate more rehabilitation programs into correctional facilities across the U.S.

References:

Cotton, M. (2000). Back with a vengeance: the resilience of retribution as an articulated purpose of criminal punishment. American Criminal Law Review, Fall, 37(4), p. 1313. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from Morgan County Community College Web site: http://faculty.mc3.edu/barmstro/drug/back.html

Colorado Technical University Online. (2005). CRJ485-0802A-01: Capstone in Criminal Justice phase 3 course materials. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from https://campus.ctuonline.edu

The drug trade and the American criminal justice system [Custom ed.]. (2004-2005). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.