Criminological thinking on PUNISHMENT
Punishment
“ a legally approved method designed to facilitate the task of crime control”
(Garland)
Two opposing ideas over what the purpose of punishment should be:
Aim of punishment – prevention of future crimes = REDUCTIVIST
Those who look to the past to punish crimes already committed =
RETRIBUTIVIST
In practice, most criminal justice systems have these two aims co-existing
in an uneasy hybrid combination
REDUCTIVIST principles
Justifies punishment on grounds of its alleged future consequences
Supported by form of moral reasoning known as UTILITARIANISM
By pointing to a future or greater good, reductivist principles focus on the
instrumental “ends” of punishment
So… the avoidance of further crime can be achieved through:
deterring potential criminals (DETERRENCE)
reforming actual criminals (REFORM + REHABILITATION)
keeping actual or potential offenders out of circulation
(INCAPACITATION)
UTILITARIANISM
Advocated by Jeremy BENTHAM (17148 – 1832)
For punishment to reduce future crimes, the pains and unhappiness caused to
the offender must be ‘outweighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other
people in the future – thus making punishment morally right from a utilitarian
point of view.’ (Cavadino and Dignan)
DETERRENCE
Crime can be discouraged through the public’s fear of punishment they may
receive if they break the law
Individual deterrence
When someone finds the experience of punishment so unpleasant that they
never wish to repeat the infraction of fear of the consequences (“short sharp
treatment”)
General deterrence
Offenders are punished not to deter the offenders but to discourage
potential offenders
REFORM and REHABILITATION
Reform
19th century development of prison regimes that sought to change the
offender through a combination of hard labour and religious instruction
Rehabilitation
More individualised treatment programmes introduced in 20th century with
emergence of welfare state
Rehabilitation
At its height in 1950s and 1960s
Criminal behaviour was not a freely willed action but a symptom of some
kind of mental illness that should be ‘treated’
Mid 1970s
Research showed that ‘nothing worked’
But now revival with recent attempts to find ‘what works’
Rehabilitation programmes might ‘facilitate change’ rather than ‘coerce and
cure’
(Cavadino and Dignan)
Incapacitation
Offenders ability to commit further crimes by locking them up
Not about changing the offender’s behaviour or about causes of crime
It is about protecting potential victims as essence of punishment as opposed to
rights of offenders
Sentencing policy – main philosophical justification for imprisonment – ‘prison
works’ – takes persistent and serious offenders off the streets and so, it is
claimed, reduces the crime rate (Murray) – dramatic growth in prison
population in recent years
Most extreme form of incapacitation = death penalty: sex offenders – surgical
or chemical castration
Mandatory minimum sentencing – three strikes and you’re out
RETRIBUTIVIST principles
Wrongdoers should be punished because they deserve it, irrespective of
any future beneficial consequences
“an eye for an eye” 1750BC in Babylon
Based on concept of lex talionis = law of retaliation
principle developed by philosopher Immanuel KANT
Revival in the past 30 years of retributivist ideas under guise of ‘just deserts’
‘Just deserts’
1950s/60s – penal system – important element of welfare state’s programme
of social engineering – prevent crime through deterring potential offenders and
incapacitating actual offenders and it was hoped that treatment programmes
would rehabilitate offenders
Move by mid 1970s about individual rights – new retributivist argument – just
deserts
Offenders should be punished only as severely as they deserve
punishment fit the crime
In reality, offenders tend to be already socially disadvantaged so that
punishment actually increases equality rather than reducing it
So…should imprisonment be reserved only for serious offenders??
Sociological explanations of PUNISHMENT
Sociologists explore the deeper role that punishment plays in society
number of competing perspectives
each one can be informed by a social theory
main theorists – DURKHEIM, MARX, FOUCAULT
The sociology of punishment seeks to understand why and how we punish
Emile Durkheim – SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
1858 -1917
Examined relationships between crime, law and
punishment to look for mechanisms that created
SOCIAL SOLIDARITY.
Also called FUNCTIONALISM: whatever aspect of social life is being studied, it
must be approached from perspective of discovering what role it performs in
preserving social stability
Durkheim identifies the function of modern punishment in reassuring the public
sentiment
Punishment is able to play an important political role in maintaining authority
Karl MARX
1818 -1883
The benefits of using a Marxist framework is that it allows
us to understand why offenders from the working class are
imprisoned and offenders from the middle/upper classes
are not.
Discriminatory decision-making throughout the whole criminal justice system
ensures that the socially advantaged are routinely filtered out: they are given
the benefit of the doubt, or are defined as good risks, or simply have access
to the best legal advice.
Serious punishments such as imprisonment are predominantly reserved for the
unemployed, the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, and those
who lack social support and personal assets.
Marxist theory is based upon the idea of class struggle and ideology.
Marxist theories tells us then, that the reason we imprison offenders is to
control those who are a threat to dominant values.
Michel FOUCAULT
1926 -1984
"Disciplinary Punishment," is what Foucault says is practised in the modern
era.
Disciplinary punishment gives "professionals" (psychologists, programme
facilitators, parole officers, etc.) power over the prisoner, most notably in that
the prisoner's length of stay depends on the professionals' judgment.
Power is on an increasingly individualised level, shown by the possibility for
institutions to track individuals throughout their lives.
Foucault suggests that a continuum runs through modern society, from the
maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social
workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives.
All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance,
application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others.
Activities
Compare the differences between reductivists and retributivists over how
punishment can be justified and how much punishment ought to be inflicted
How might you apply Marxist ideas to contemporary trends in
punishment?
What do you think the limits on punishment should be and why?