Purposes of Sentencing

Abstract

In the world today, just as it has always been from antiquity, some persons perpetrate different crimes. In no age has crimes been absent. Each has had its share of these delinquent acts. Notably, without controversy, these acts have always arisen because of various factors—some preventable, while others not so much. To deal with these unwelcome incidences of crime, the criminal justice system resorts to the following measures, rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation; among these correctional perspectives, according to popular belief and statistical information, rehabilitation is central. Therefore, this paper shall delve deeper into these measures and give a case of why rehabilitation is regarded as central.

Purposes of Sentencing

Rehabilitation

In general terms, rehabilitation is defined as the correction of criminals’ crime causing traits. In other words, it is the treatment of criminals to ensure they do not repeat their delinquent acts. By other scholars, the term has been defined as not just a form of preventing re-offending but especially a form of promoting cessation from offending (Raynor & Robinson 2005). To this end, just as in the medical profession, experts, adept in detecting and deleting crime causing factors, are used. Importantly, this theory cannot hold, if persons deliberately decide to commit crimes; if either behavioral or psychological factors do not impel them. The reason for this being—it is impossible to correct or treat choices; only character traits can be corrected or treated.

One of the ways of rehabilitation, to give an example, for persons incarcerated for crimes mostly motivated by substance abuse, substance abuse rehabilitation is preferred. For these sessions, different types of therapies, face to face counseling with psychologists, and group sessions are highly employed. Conventionally, the completion of this type of rehabilitation is a requisite for probation or parole.

Retribution

Retribution, also referred to as just deserts, is essentially the punishment of the offender to balance the scales of justice. Since the criminal inflicted pain upon the victim, pain is inflicted back (Bradley 2003). By the vast majority, this correctional perspective is viewed as non-utilitarian—simply put, it has no other end in view apart from punishing the offender. For justification, the criminal justice system relies on the fact that the offender willfully inflicted pain upon another—to them, this is sufficient ground for the punishment.

For instance, to make this concept more understandable, consider the following instances retributive justice. A rapist sentenced to 30 years in jail, fines for the guilty, compensatory damages, and other fees—all these are examples of retribution for crimes.

Deterrence

In sharp, striking contrast to retribution, which lacks utilitarianism, deterrence, also supporting punishment of offenders, assumes that punishment will cause offenders to cause them to understand that crime does not pay. In effect, they would be led to cessation. When it applies to an individual, it is termed as specific deterrence, but when it causes people in the society to shun crime after seeing the suffering borne by the offender, it is termed as general deterrence. Notably, this correctional perspective assumes that offenders, after weighing the risks and rewards of crime in the balance of reason and realizing that the rewards outweigh the risks, they decide to commit the crime—thus, according to this correctional perspective, offenders are rational. To end this rationality, they add some weight to the risks by making the punishments most severe (Van Den Hagg 1969).

Incapacitation

As the name suggests, incapacitation is the imprisonment of offenders. Like deterrence and rehabilitation, this correctional perspective has the utilitarian goal in view. To this end, by protecting the society from the harmful criminal effect of offenders, it locks them behind bars—thus reducing the level of crime in society. For offenders of various crimes, including assaults, rape, murder, this sentence is often applied (Greenwood & Abrahamse 1982). Significantly, depending on the perceptions of different nations, the rates of incarceration differ. For instance, to illustrate, in the United States of America, per 100,000 of the population, the country has 650 inmates, while in Guinea Bissau, per 100, 000 people it imprisons a mere ten people. In sum, then, this correctional perspective only aims at saving the society from the crimes consequent of the presence of offenders in their midst. By incarcerating them, it prevents them from committing future crimes.

Best Correctional Perspective

In viewing these three correctional perspectives through the lens of utilitarianism, it is evident that rehabilitation only shares this goal with deterrence and incapacitation. Nevertheless, while deterrence punishes offenders as a way of scaring potential offenders, and incapacitation punishing offenders as a way of saving the society from the evil presence of the offenders, rehabilitation aims at treating the offenders (giving them new skills and attitudes) and as a result assisting the society as well. Thus, rehabilitation assists both offenders and society. As such, in my opinion, this is the best correctional perspective.

Conclusion

Summarily, the criminal justice system applies four correctional perspectives in attempting to treat and control crimes. These four measures include rehabilitation, retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. Of these four, on the grounds of assisting both the society and the offenders, rehabilitation is by far the best correctional perspective.

References

Bradley, G. V. (2003). Retribution: The central aim of punishment. Harv. JL & Pub. uPol’y, 27, 19.

Greenwood, P. W., & Abrahamse, A. F. (1982). Selective incapacitation (pp. 11-26). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2005). Rehabilitation, crime and justice. Springer.

Van Den Hagg, E. (1969). On deterrence and the death penalty. J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci., 60, 141.