Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
1. Reintegration of the offender into society with specially designed systems of punishment
2. A reaction to Modernism and to theories generated from the human sciences regarding
human behaviour as a product of its environment and therefore susceptible to change
3. Assumes that some or many offences are determined by social pressures, psychological
difficulties or situational problems
4. Sentences should be tailored to the needs of the individual offender
Critique Scott (2009)
1. Crime is not an illness but a social construct
2. Human beings are not animals to be trained
3. ‘Cures’ can be intrusive and ineffective
4. Open – ended nature of the sentence can infringe on right
1. Incapacitation removes the element of choice and removes the
offender or potential re- offender from circulation
2. A response to the existence of ‘choice’ present in deterrence and
rehabilitation, choice equals potential danger
3. The management of risk
4. The identification of potential threats
5. The rights of potential victims are prioritised over the rights of
potential offenders
Critique Scott (2009)
1. Crime is cyclical and generational, for incapacitation to work we
would have to constantly incarcerate large sections of the population
2. Incapacitation is grounded in flawed positivism, prediction and risk
● Sentencing which discourages reoffending
● Reaffirms norms and values
● Inspired by Beccarias Classicism
● Utilitarian, there to maximise the happiness and solidarity of wider society
● This can mean either general or individual deterrence
● Individual Deterrence – deterring someone who has offended from offending again
● General Deterrence – using punishment as an example to others
Critique Scott (2009)
1. Can we quantify the experiences of pain and pleasure?
2. Can we measure the deterrent effect?
3. Is deterrence universal?
4. what about impulsive and opportunistic crime?
5. There is very little evidence to support the idea that harsh punishments work
Hudson (2003)
Utilising the work of Hudson (2003) and Cavadino and Dignan (2007) we will be focussing on the various 'Philosophies of Punishment’ as a way of demonstrating the differing ways punishment has, and is, contextualised
Offenders deserve to be punished:
● The amount of punishment should be proportionate to the
amount of wrongdoing
● Punishment functions to restrain and control
● Individuals are rational and responsible
● The assumption is that the system is also rational and
responsible, ie punishes equally and reflects an equal system
● Proportionality
Critique Scott (2009)
1. Society is unequal, the enforcement of the criminal law is
focused on working class property offenders
2. Those who are punished tend be poor both financially and in
regards to life chances
3. The majority of offenders never receive any formal punishment
4. Does punishment degrade both the offender and dehumanise
those who call for it?
5. Is social balance restored?
Considering its general usage, Hudson (2003) in ‘Understanding Justice’ postulates that the
origins of many of the ideas surrounding punishment can be contextualised as below. We punish
because:
● it’s deemed that people ‘deserve’ it
● victims need to be reassured about the validity and capability of the state
● it’s a valid way of offenders making amendments for the harm they have caused
● it reaffirms societal laws
● punishment performs societal functions
The classic definition of punishment was constructed by Antony Flew (1954) who
proposed that punishment can be deconstructed to five basic propositions:
1. it must create human suffering
2. arise as a direct result of the perpetration of an offence
3. only be directed at the person who undertook the offence
4. be the intentional creation of other humans in response to that offence
5. be inflicted by an authorised body representing the embodiment of the rules or laws of the society in which the offence was committed
Key issues within these definitions:
1. non state intervention is not legitimate
2. to what extent is state intervention legitimate
3. are state punishments justifiable
Ashworth (2003) theorises that the rationale for sentencing can be broken down into five
main approaches:
● Desert or Retributive Theories
● Deterrence Theories
● Rehabilitative Sentencing
● Incapacitative Sentencing
● Restorative and Reparative Theories