NCJ Number
206456
Date Published
2004
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This chapter critiques various theories of criminal punishment.
Abstract
Purely retributive theories of legal punishment, in whatever guise, are all logically inconsistent, resulting in the use of eclectic theories of punishment in judicial practice. These theories involve a blend of punishment for its own sake (crime must result in the application of punishment) and punishment as a means of preventing crime. Logically, these two types of theories, however, are irreconcilable and should not be mixed. Deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation as purposes of legal punishment are all attempts to prevent reoffending and can only be distinguished by the degree to which they serve that purpose effectively. Only a consequentialist theory of legal punishment (punishment must achieve specified goals) is logically consistent; therefore, it is the only acceptable theory of legal punishment. Prevention through deterrence may be the only logically consistent purpose of criminal punishment, but its logic has no substance unless it can be shown to have the intended effect. Controlled laboratory studies indicate that under the proper circumstances, punishment is an effective suppressor of undesired behaviors. In practice, however, laboratory conditions cannot be replicated. Still, most offenders do not reoffend. The recognition that a relatively high percentage of offenders will reoffend, however, is the price to be paid for relative freedom from repressive policing and the widespread use of deterrence measures. 3 notes and 27 references