NCJ Number
98994
Journal
Connecticut Law Review Volume: 16 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1984) Pages: 803-820
Date Published
1984
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This paper critiques the debate on the justification for punishment in the criminal justice system and proposes a new conceptual methodology that reconciles the polar positions of the debate.
Abstract
The paper's opening section delineates the traditional goals of criminal punishment -- incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution -- and notes the problem in justifying retribution compared with other punishment goals, since it has no obvious connection with crime reduction and social improvement. The second section examines four influential theories of punishment as presented in the writings of Anthony Quinton, John Rawls, H.L.A. Hart, and theorists the author classifies as 'true retributivists.' Quinton and Rawls present arguments for the utilitarian or forward-looking justification for punishment (punishment should improve the social order by reducing crime) in opposition to the retributive justification for punishment (the guilty must be punished with fitting severity). Hart offers a justification for punishment that encompases both the utilitarian and retributive arguments, but the author argues that he does not attempt to reconcile utilitarianism and retributivism at the theoretical level. The author then introduces a new conceptual methodology that incorporates retributivism into a 'forward-looking' mode (the common good is served). The author reasons that although retribution may not reduce crime, it affirms moral values and society's commitment to upholding them. This serves the common good by touting values of nonpredatory and life-enhancing behaviors. Sixty-one footnotes are provided.