In what ways do the five sentencing philosophies provide difference answers to this question?
In what ways do the five sentencing philosophies provide different answers to this question?
Classical theories provide that punishment should fit the crime. In order for punishment to fit the crime, criminal law should provide reasonable penalties for crimes and the criminal justice system should apply these penalties in a reasonable manner (Akers, 1999). Scientific alternative interventions for criminal behavior point to pathways for fitting punishment to the criminal. Whether the punishment fits the crime or the punishment fits the criminal depends on which of the five sentencing philosophies govern the punishment of a crime.
Deterrence is one sentencing philosophy. Clear, Reisig and Cole (2016) described deterrence as influencing the future choices and actions of individuals by providing them with examples of punishment imposed on other people that they expect to receive when committing similar acts. Deterrence applies to specific individuals with past convictions and to the general population. In imposing punishment based on deterrence, the punishment fits the crime. Deterrence is effective only if there is a standard punishment for different crimes that individuals committing these crimes expect to receive upon conviction (Akers, 1999). Customizing punishment to the individual, without standard punishment, defeats deterrence.
Retribution is another sentencing philosophy. According to Clear et al. (2016), retribution is the imposition of punishment that is proportional to the severity of the offense committed and the consequences of the offense on victims. By focusing on the offense, this sentencing philosophy supports the claim that punishment should fit the crime. As such, the punishment should be severe enough, but not too harsh to fit the crime. Pursuit of retribution may also accommodate the sentencing philosophy of deterrence, if the punishment is severe enough to outweigh the expected gains from committing crimes in the future (Akers, 1999).
Incapacitation is another sentencing philosophy. Clear et al. (2016) explained that incapacitation involves keeping an offender in prison in order to prevent him/her from committing further crimes. An offender who shows proclivity for committing crimes receives a longer sentence. By focusing on the propensity of the offender to commit crime, this sentencing philosophy supports the claim that the punishment should fit the criminal. Yet, incapacitation may also address retribution and deterrence (Akers, 1999).
Rehabilitation is another sentencing philosophy. Clear et al. (2016) described rehabilitation as the reorientation of offenders towards becoming contributing members of society through education, skills building, and treatment. Punishment is oriented towards the offender. Rehabilitation may also have deterrent effects (Akers, 1999).
Restoration is the last sentencing philosophy. According to Clear et al. (2016), restoration focuses on repairing the harms caused by the crime of the offender by soliciting community involvement in finding the best way of convincing an offender that he/she is not exempt from the law. In this sense, restoration supports claims on punishment fitting the crime and the criminal. Restoration may also have rehabilitative and deterrent effects (Akers, 1999).
Whether the punishment should fit the crime or the punishment should fit the criminal depends on the philosophy governing the imposition of punishment. Deterrence and retribution support the claim that punishment should fit the crime. Incapacitation and rehabilitation support the claim that the punishment should fit the criminal. Restoration adheres to the claims that punishment should fit the crime and the criminal. Pursuit of one sentencing philosophy does not necessarily exclude other philosophies. Fitting punishment to the crime is important in ensuring standard punishments for crimes; but fitting punishment to the criminal, at the same time, may also be appropriate in particular situations and in order to achieve multiple punishment goals.
References
Akers, R. L. (1999). Criminological theories. Chicago, IL: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2016). American corrections (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
