There are five main purposes of crime sentencing. Rules about punishment, such as how much punishment can be inflicted and for what kinds of behavior, are of course contained in laws and regulations, so in this sense law justifies punishment. However, the moral justification for punishment is a separate issue from the legal justification because, although the law may provide for the infliction of punishment, society’s moral justification for punishment still has to be established. The first purpose of criminal sentencing is rehabilitation. Rehabilitations goal is to change a offenders attitude to what they have done. Rehabilitation also requires the criminal to face the fact that what they have done is wrong. Rehabilitation has gotten bad wrap lately, as previously "rehabilitation" meant using forced mechanisms to ensure there was no re-offending (like forced lobotomies, medication, etc.) Often, this term is used to talk about education, drug treatment, religious instruction, job training and other skills that are offered in prison systems. The new buzz word is "restorative justice" -- to talk about counseling, drug courts, shame punishments, and other forms of "alternative sentencing" that involves less or little incarceration.
There is also the goal of deterrence. There are two different types if deterrence, the first is classified as specific deterrence. The goal of this category of deterrence is to lessen the probability of having a repeat offender. The three strikes law is an example of one of the methods that is used to assist this category of deterrence. The other category of deterrence is general deterrence. This category focuses more on future offenders. “General deterrence attempts to positively influence would be offenders and stop the crimes before they happen“ (Schmalleger, 2003, p. 406).
Deterrence is a very effective method in achieving the goals of criminal sentencing. If society knows its punishment for a crime, this may be the entire deterrent necessary to prevent a crime from happening. However, if the crime is still committed then society must do what is required to deter the next possible criminal from performing the criminal act. This could be a vital step in the ongoing battle between the good guys and the bad guys.
Incapacitation is a justification of punishment that refers to when the offender’s ability to commit further offences is removed. This is a forward-looking justification of punishment that views the future reductions in re-offending as sufficient justification for the punishment. This can occur in one of two ways; the offender’s ability to commit crime can be physically removed, or the offender can be geographically removed.
The offender’s ability to commit crime can be physically removed in several ways. This can include cutting the hands off a thief, as well as other crude punishments. The castration of offenders is another punishment that can be justified by incapacitation, furthered by recent media coverage in Britain of the proposed chemical castration of sexual offenders. Incapacitation, in this sense, can include any number of punishments including taking away the driving license off a dangerous driver but can also include capital punishment.
Despite this, incapacitation is predominately thought of as incarceration. Imprisonment has the effect of confining prisoners, physically preventing them from committing crimes against those outside, i.e. protecting the community. Before the widespread use of imprisonment, banishment was used as a form of incapacitation. Nowadays courts have a flexible array of sentence options available to them that can restrict offender’s movements, and subsequently their ability to commit crime.
Selective incapacitation is a modified form of incapacitation that rationalizes the practice of giving only dangerous and persistent offenders long, and in some case indefinite, prison sentences. The approach adopts a utilitarian viewpoint that regards the protection, and subsequent happiness, of the majority as justification of giving excessive and indefinite prison sentences. There is, however, strong moral opposition to this concept.
Retribution is the practice of "getting even" with a wrongdoer. The suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as good in itself, even if it has no other benefits. One reason for societies to include this judicial element is to diminish the perceived need for street justice, blood revenge and vigilantism However, some argue that this is a "zero sum game", that such acts of street justice and blood revenge are not removed from society, but responsibility for carrying them out is merely transferred to the state. Retribution sets an important standard on punishment the transgressor must get what he deserves, but no more. Therefore, a thief put to death is not retribution; a murderer put to death is.
The term retribution can be used in several senses. It can indicate vengeance or expiration, however, it is today more commonly associated with giving the offender his just deserts and using punishment as a censure or denunciation. The desire for vengeance theory is that the punishment satisfies the victim's desire for vengeance, and the state is exacting vengeance on their behalf to prevent private retaliation. Such a view finds little support today. Expiration requires the offender to work off his guilt; he must be purified through suffering. The essence of the expiratory view is that in suffering his punishment, the offender has purged his guilt, has paid for his crime, and that his account with society is therefore clear.
Justice and fairness ensure that all people must bear the consequences of obeying the law equally. Thus punishment is necessary to remove the benefits gained by the offender. The concept of just deserts has attracted criticism as there is the suspicion that the idea of desert cannot be distinguished from a principle of vengeance or the unappealing assertion that two wrongs somehow make a right. Although, there are two main advantages to desert based punishment. First, it imposes limits on the states power in that excessive exemplary or incapacitate sentences become unacceptable. Second, it reduces the unjustifiable sentencing disparity, as two offenders whom commit the same crime will receive similar punishments, irrespective of race, culture or background.
References:
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal Justice Today. New Jersey: Prentiss Hall.
Vogler, R. (2005). A World View of Criminal Justice. New York: Routledge.
Wallace, H. & Roberson, C. (2005). Principles of Criminal Law. New York: Pearson.