Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
UNIT 4 - 2.2: AIMS OF PUNISHMENT - Coggle Diagram
UNIT 4 - 2.2: AIMS OF PUNISHMENT
PUBLIC PROTECTION
incapacitation/ punishment: used to protect the public from further offending
incapacitation can prevent physical ability to offend again through execution, chemical castration (sex offenders), banishment, foreign travel bands, electronic tag
imprisonment
main method of incapacitation
offenders out of circulation, preventing further crimes
incapacitation for public protection has influenced sentencing laws like crime (sentences) act 1997, introducing mandatory min. jail sentences for repeat offenders
e.g. automatic life sentence for second serious sexual/ violent offence
*
criminal justice act: indeterminate sentence to 'dangerous offender convicted of certain several violent sexual offences'
THEORY
LOMBROSO
: believed criminals are biologically different so cannot be changed/ rehabilitated, so exile or chemical/ surgical castration for sex offenders is better
RIGHT REALISM
: incapacitation protects the public from crime
CRITICISMS
incapacitation leads to longer sentences w/ little hope of release, leading to higher prison population + associated costs
incapacitation doesn't deal with causes of crime or change offenders into law abiding citizens
incapacitation is unjust as it imprisons people for crimes the law assumes they could commit in the future
RETRIBUTION
offender's punishment is vengeance for crime
retribution is criminals getting their justice, deserving to be punished by society being able to take their revenge
punishment should be proportionate to harm done
there is a fixed scale of penalties for different offences
retribution = moral condemnation
hate crimes allow us to see how retribution works; e.g. grievous bodily harm (5yrs prison), gbh with racial intent (7yrs prison)
higher sentences = greater societal outrage
THEORY
RIGHT REALISM
- RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY: retribution assumes offenders consciously make the choice to do crime so are fully responsible for their actions
DURKHEIM
- BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE: what the moral outrage that retribution expresses performs, reminding society of what's right/ wrong
CRITICISMS
retribution discourages mitigating factors (mandatory min. sentences), and considering mitigating factors doesn't take away offender's responsibility entirely
punishment > treatment: mental illness can cause crime, and many mentally ill offenders don't get the treatment they deserve, criminalising them, and a conviction reduces chances of getting treatment and only encourages typification
other solutions: restorative justice, where both offenders, victims and community are involved to repair harm done
some would say offenders deserve forgiveness/ a second chance for amends, not just punishment; fixed tariff penalties give punishment w/ no benefit if the offender is remorseful
REHABILITATION
punishment can reform offenders so they don't reoffend + can live crime-free
uses programmes/ policies to change offender's future behaviour by investigating issues leading to offending
education/ training programmes
to increase education/ skill levels to improve employment chances upon release + reduce probability of recidivism
prisoners tend to have lower educational achievement rates + fewer transferrable skills
anger management courses
a form of cbt to change how a prisoner thinks and then acts
aspects (novaco)
cognitive preparation: identifying when anger comes and how to notice psychological changes during anger
skill acquisition: learning skills for more effective communication in response to being provoked, incl.: cognitive positive self-talk, behavioural redirection, meditation
application practice: role play
drug treatment
e.g. drug recovery prison programme, assisting prisoners w/ coping w/ causes of addiction by addressing underlying issues, treating drug addiction as treatable health issue
the offender has to be willing to change + want support from professionals to achieve change; rehab helps w/ reintegration
THEORY
INDIVIDUALISTIC
COGNITIVE: using cbt teaches offenders to correct thinking errors/ biases leading to aggressive/ criminal behaviour
OPERANT LEARNING/ SKINNER: token economies encourage prisoners to produce more acceptable behaviour
SOCIOLOGICAL
LEFT REALISM: favours rehab as social factors (unemployment, poverty, poor educational opportunities) cause crime
CRITICISMS
RIGHT REALISM
: rehab only has limited success; many go on to reoffend after programmes
MARXISM
: say rehab shifts responsibility for offending onto offender's failing, instead of how capitalism leads to some crime
DETERRENCE
INDIVIDUAL & GENERAL
INDIVIDUAL
punishing the individual to stop reoffending
'prison works': if sentencing is harsh enough offenders won't want to return
margaret thatcher's 'short, sharp shock' was made for juvenile detention centres to deter young offenders
us do boot camps with the same aim
GENERAL
focuses on deterring society
if offenders are seen being punished, this deters society - making an example
this used to be done through capital/ public punishment
now done through media - public are aware of costs of offending
SEVERITY VS CERTAINTY
severe punishment but unlikely conviction -> deterrence won't work
mandatory min. sentence + low likelihood of being punished won't be deterrence
if offender is v likely to be caught a mild punishment could be deterrence
THEORIES
RIGHT REALISM
rational choice: offenders act rationally; crime seen to bring more benefits, so punishments should be severe to stop this
situational crime prevention - target hardening: make crime harder to commit/ offend successfully = deterrence
SOCIAL LEARNING
would-be offenders see a model being punished for offending -> less likely to imitate behaviour
CRITICISMS
little evidence to show 'short, sharp shock' reduces youtth offending in uk
half of all offenders reoffend within a year of release
unclear to say whether a punishment is severe enough
deterrence assumes offenders act rationally, but some are irrationally driven by emotions w/o thought of punishment
deterrence assumes would-be offenders know what punishments are but are just ignorant
people who break laws they see as unjust are unlikely to be deterred by punishment