Reform, Revenge, and Retribution - Do Two Wrongs Really Make a Right?

Two wrongs don't make a right - but three lefts do. When looking at a system of justice, four common approaches to punishment are Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Deterrence, and Retribution. These can often be described as forward-looking (fixing for the future) or backwards-looking (making amends for past mistakes).

Incapacitation:

The forward-looking approach of incapacitation is often associated with utilitarianism. If the public will be best served by punishment that keeps the criminal locked behind bars, justice has been achieved. Incapacitation could be as subtle as a restraining order, which would keep a person away from the ones being bothered, or capital punishment - the ultimate incapacitation.

Rehabilitation:

A popular school of thought is that criminals should be reformed. A punishment is used to change the criminal's view on committing the crime. The problem here is that punishments can range from very harsh to a slap on the wrist, so long as the criminal is reformed after the punishment is administered.

Deterrence:

A strong deterrent, often strict punishment designed to make criminals choose not to break the law again, is called a specific deterrence. General deterrence is when others decide not to break the law because of the strict punishment they witnessed. Time in prison may stop people from stealing cars, but harsh punishments are often needed to deter criminal activity, especially violent crimes. Is capital punishment, a strong deterrent, a solution for finding justice? Generally speaking, most countries with a high level of political freedom have decided that the punishment must somehow "fit the crime".

Retribution:

This backward-looking justice system is not concerned with the effect of punishment for the good of society. Retribution is punishment because a crime was committed, whether or not it betters society or reforms criminals. The punishment often 'suits the crime', but is not ethical simply because it may be a deterrent or incapacitation, but because the person has transgressed the law and must abide by the set punishment.

If the punishment for a rapist does not stop the them from raping again, what have we achieved? Have we just allowed another rapist to be put on the streets near our family and friends - or is it something more than that? Punishment that does not bring about change or punishes ineffectually is a waste of resources and a vain display of authority. The same effect could easily have been achieved without the punishment, so why spend the extra time, money, and effort?

A backwards-looking system like retribution is not about looking for a solution, but staring at the problem and penalizing it after the fact. Deciding that two wrongs make a right is an effective way of saying, "Instead of fixing the problem, I'll dwell in the past." Justice systems based on retribution are not necessarily concerned with repairing the damage done to continue from the present. A pedophile who has not changed their sexual preference, once punished by a backwards-looking system, may continue to target young children. There's an old saying, "Only a fool would walk into the future looking backwards."