Why Does Our Society Punish?

The United States has locked up its fair share of offenders, thus resulting in overcrowding in prisons (Allen, H. E., Simonsen, C.E. & Associates, 2004). To further understand the correctional system, we need to understand why we punish and the goals of corrections. In addition to understanding why we punish and the goals of corrections, we need to take a look at the alternatives that are available within the corrections system.

Why do we punish? Well, the answer is quite simple. We punish because it is our nature. Punishment is something that we learn from as early as childhood (Seiter, R.P., 2005). The government has imposed punishment as a means to control crime. There are four key justifications for punishing criminals: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (Seiter, R. P., 2005). These four justifications serve as the goals of the United States correctional system.

Retribution was first seen in the Old Testament, from which the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" has come. Retribution is built upon the belief that each crime should be punished by a similar or identical harm (Seiter, R.P., 2005). Retribution has become a part of the correctional system for the human need for vengeance. Since vengeance is not lawful, the other alternative is to apply retribution (Seiter, R.P., 2005). The other side of retribution can be simply stated that when an offender commits a crime, he must be punished for his actions. Retribution serves as a means to keep the general public safe. For example, if someone were to kill another individual, instead of the victim's family killing the murderer and possibly endangering innocent bystanders, the government takes control of the retribution to prevent vengeance from escalating (Seiter, R. P., 2005).

Incapacitation is when the offender is placed in an environment in which his/her freedoms are restricted. Incapacitation prevents the criminal from committing crimes against the general society; however, these offenders may still commit crimes behind bars, thus becoming even better criminals upon their release (Muraskin, R., 2005). There are two categories of incapacitation: collective incapacitation and selective incapacitation (Seiter, R.P., 2005). Collective incapacitation occurs when society focuses on locking up all criminals regardless of their likelihood of committing more crimes. This type of incapacitation stems from a belief that incarceration, along with other forms of incapacitation, are effective when it comes to controlling crimes (Seiter, R.P., 2005). Selective incapacitation occurs when the most severe punishments are kept to punish only the most dangerous criminals. Selective incapacitation has a scientific base that found that a large number of crimes were committed by a very small percentage of criminals (Seiter, R.P., 2005). Some argue that collective incapacitation is applied to criminals who are undeserving of the punishment and the costs are too much. Also, some argue that it does not address the crime itself, but serves as a way to make society feel safer (Seiter, R.P., 2005).

Deterrence can be seen as "sending a message to the would be criminal" (Muraskin, R., 2005). The roots of deterrence goes as far back as the eighteenth-century England when Jeremy Bentham "argued that retribution was pointless and unjustified except when pain inflicted was demonstrably more beneficial to society than pain withheld. The presumed benefit of punishment was the prevention of crime. The basic objective of punishment...was to deter potential criminals by the examples of the sanctions laid on the guilty" (Muraskin, R, 2005, p. 46, Para 5). Unfortunately for Jeremy Bentham, deterrence does not work in that way. The goal of deterrence is to dissuade individuals from committing crimes by seeing the various punishments that go along with those crimes. Unfortunately, deterrence is not as effective as one might have hoped. Deterrence assumes that individuals may be discouraged from committing crimes because of the threat of sever punishment in turn assumes that all individuals act in a rational manner which is not the case. In fact, individuals who are prone to commit any type of crime generally do not act in a rational manner, thus proving that deterrence is not effective (Muraskin, R, 2005). In order for deterrence to be effective there is a need to impose a certain severe enough punishment, in a timely manner. For example, if someone was guaranteed to be struck by lightning for the crime of burglary, that individual would probably refrain from committing the crime (Seiter, R.P., 2005). Unfortunately, there exist no certain and severe enough punishments to make deterrence work.

Rehabilitation is not as popular as the other three justifications for punishment. Rehabilitation is considered the only way to re-socialize an offender and allow him/her to lead a productive life (Muraskin, R, 2005). Those who support rehabilitation believe that something in the offender's environment has led him/her to commit crimes. Rehabilitation involves "retraining" the offender by academic training, vocational training, and employment opportunities while incarcerated (Seiter, R.P., 2005). In the United States rehabilitation takes a back seat. This is because correctional officials do not know what works or even if rehabilitation works (Seiter, R.P., 2005). It is essential, in my opinion, that rehabilitation be incorporated into the corrections system in the United States. My belief in rehabilitation comes from the belief that most offenders of nonviolent crimes can change if they are provided the opportunity.

While incarceration seems to be the most widely utilized form of punishment in the United States, there are other alternatives to incarceration. Due to the overcrowding of prisons in the United States, there are several programs available that serve as an alternative to incarceration. Some of the alternatives include: fines, day attendance centers, restitution orders, house arrest, electronic monitoring, intensive supervised probation, drug courts, and community service programs (Allen, H.E. et al., 2004). There also are community residential treatment centers (also known as halfway houses) that handle different types of offenders. I believe community residential treatment centers should be utilized as an alternative to incarceration after a combination of the lesser alternatives has been utilized. By ordering a criminal to a community residential treatment center for the type of crime that s/he has committed, can help rehabilitate the offender by being able to relate to others in the same situation.

References

Allen, H.E., Simonsen, C.E. & Latessa, E.J. (2004). (Eds). Corrections in America: an introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Muraskin, R. (2005). Key correctional issues. Changing goals of corrections (pp.45-51). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Seiter, R.P. (2005). The drug trade and the American criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines (pp. 191-225). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.