NCJ Number
62397
Date Published
1978
Length
13 pages
Annotation
PRIMARY RATIONALES FOR ESTABLISHING SANCTIONS AND ISSUING SENTENCES FOR LAWBREAKING ARE IDENTIFIED AND ASSESSED.
Abstract
RATIONALES FOR PROVIDING SANCTIONS AND RENDERING SENTENCES FOR LAW VIOLATIONS CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS FOLLOWS: (1) RETRIBUTIVE, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR INFLICTING A PENALTY IS THAT THE OFFENDER DESERVES IT BECAUSE OF THE OFFENSE COMMITTED; (2) REDUCTIVE, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR PENALIZING OFFENDERS IS THAT IT REDUCES THE FREQUENCY OF OFFENSES; AND (3) DENUNCIATORY, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR PUNISHING AN OFFENDER IS THAT IT DENOUNCES THE OFFENSE AS A THREAT TO THE VALUES OF SOCIETY. ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE 'DENOUNCER' IS EITHER A CRYPTO-REDUCER OR A QUASI-RETRIBUTIVIST. THE FORMER HOLDS IF THE DENOUNCER BELIEVES THAT SENTENCES PROVIDE MORAL EDUCATION FOR THE OFFENDER AND THE PUBLIC. THE LATTER REFERS TO THE DENOUNCER WHO REGARDS SENTENCES AS CEREMONIAL RITUALS WHICH PROVIDE A CATHARSIS FOR THOSE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN THE OFFENSE, SINCE WITHOUT RETRIBUTIVE PERSPECTIVES THERE COULD BE NO CATHARSIS. THE 'REDUCER' CANNOT BE COMPLETELY DISCREDITED, SINCE IT CANNOT BE UNEQUIVOCALLY ESTABLISHED THAT SENTENCES DO NOT REDUCE CRIME IN SOME INSTANCES. NEITHER CAN THE 'RETRIBUTIVIST' BE THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED, SINCE THE RATIONALE STEMS FROM A PERSONAL BELIEF THAT UNPUNISHED WRONGDOING IS A GREATER EVIL THAN PUNISHED WRONGDOING. THE CHOICE OF A RATIONALE FOR SENTENCING THUS APPEARS TO LIE BETWEEN A FORMAL RETRIBUTIVISM, AN AMBIGUOUS REDUCTIVISM, AND AN ECLECTICISM WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RATIONALIZED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)