“Deterrence remains the most relevant
theory of punishment in the 21st Century”
Discuss with reference to the UK/Scotland
and any other country/countries you have
studied. 30m
Punishment can, and does, take a variety of forms. Until recently most liberal democracies used
the death penalty but most abandoned it during the 20th century, suggesting a shift in attitudes in
penology towards more restorative practices. Theorist Zedner argues what someone deserves in
terms of the CJS is not necessarily what is judged necessary to protect society resulting in
different positions in relation to punishment. Those three positions will be divided into three
different camps; reductivism (reduces future potential crime), retributivism (from retribution, the
offender deserves to be punished) and reparation (repairs and restores – criminal can make
amends). Theories of punishment can be divided into two differing viewpoints, Utilitarian
( arguably forward thinking, has a positive impact on society as a whole in terms of protecting
and nurturing them with the usage of punishment on criminals) and Retributist view point
( arguably backward thinking, this is because it does not take into consideration of the impact a
certain punishment has on society but instead strives to display the consequences of committing
crime to society.) The manner of which criminals are punished according to their crimes can
arguably reflect society as a whole, and therefore it is not a simple task of determining which
punishment is the most relevant in the 21st century. Responses to crime are often about the
ideology of a society, but also ties in with the culturally significant conventions of what is
acceptable and what is not – the creation of a moral of sorts. Emphasis is based on differing ways
to punish all over the world, and no one society believes in the very same suitable punishment. In
order to assess whether “deterrence remains the most relevant theory of punishment in the 21st
century” the following theories of punishment will be evaluated; Deterrence, Rehabilitation,
Retribution and Denunciation.
Deterrence involves putting people off committing crime through either a sentence of
punishment they themselves have received and found to be unpleasant, or in other words
described as individual deterrence. Or through seeing the unpleasant effects on other people, or
in other words general deterrence. Deterrence theorists argue that the pain of punishment is
justified as long as the punishment avoids further pain to others in the future, however writers
such as Jeremy Bentham argued that only the minimum amount of punishment necessary to
produce the greatest happiness for the greater number of people, and that it is nature and extent
should be measured by the “hedonist calculus”, taking into account issues such as how severe the
pain of punishment was compared to the pleasure of committing crime, and how quickly the pain
, will be generated. Arguably, this form of punishment takes the utilitarian stance by striving for
the greater good and in punishment terms you should punish people so that others are put off
from committing crimes in the future as that will save a potential victims from pain and potential
future criminals from punishment, therefore a harsh sentence is justified for deterrence purposes
but only as much as is necessary to achieve this. According to Bentham, general deterrence is
when “The punishment suffered by the offender presents to everyone an example of what he
himself will have to suffer, if he is guilty of the same offence.” However historically
punishments have often been arbitrary and overly severe like being hung, drawn and quartered or
shipped to another country for a relatively minor crime. Essentially the system of punishment
has moved from severity to certainty with a more consistent tariff approach. In similarity, Cesare
Beccaria, an Italian philosopher believed that punishment was too harsh and people of lower
status were often treated much more harshly. He believed punishment should be measured to fit
the severity of the crime, and that offenders are able to make decisions based on rational choice,
uninfluenced by their social or personal conditions such as poverty, and so the extent of
punishment should be graduated to fit the severity of the crime and not the nature of the
individual criminal. Worse crimes should equal worse punishments regardless of who committed
them. Stating famously “Punishments and the means adopted for inflicting them should,
consisted with proportionality, be so selected as to make the most efficacious and lasting
impression on the minds of men with the least torment to the body of the condemned. In
analysis, there are a number of difficulties with general deterrence theories according to Von
Hirsch, taking a more modern critical approach, who questioned how one is able to decide how
severe punishments have to be in order to make people decide not to commit offences? And if all
offences are rationally assessed, what about those offences where there is a high degree of
emotions? In the 1970s the Home Office undertook a review of existing studies of deterrence, the
conclusion argued that there should be no expectations of general deterrence, which doesn’t take
into account the rights of man and lack the moral compass would effectively be a suitable
punishment. Even though there have been legal instances when deterrence worked, the findings
cannot be generalizable due to the conditions it was investigated in. Conclusively stating
“implementing an official deterrence policy can be no more than a shot in the dark, or a political
decision to pacify ‘public sentiment’, and so therefore Retributivism can be seen as a more
effective alternative approach to punishment in the CJS. This argues that punishment is justified
because people have made the voluntary choice to commit crime, therefore convicted criminals
are morally responsible for their actions, and should be blamed, and censured by the state in the
form of punishment as a result. Individual deterrence are often found in modern justifications of
punishment. However, examples show this does not often work. In the early 1980s Wiliam
Whitelaw, home secretary in the first Thatcher administration announced the introduction of a
new regime in juvenile detention centers of which would provide a “short, sharp shock£ to those
on the receiving end and, consequently, would be more effective in preventing future
reoffending. There have been similar experiments in the USA with what are referred to generally
as “Boot camps”. The Home Office’s own evaluation of the initiative was that the regimes were
no more effective than those they had replaced, concluding that “by themselves, (boot camps)
typically do not have an effect on participants odds of recidivism”. In the United States the
“three strikes and you’re out” sentence was imposed in the 1980s and 1990s, the idea that the
theory of punishment in the 21st Century”
Discuss with reference to the UK/Scotland
and any other country/countries you have
studied. 30m
Punishment can, and does, take a variety of forms. Until recently most liberal democracies used
the death penalty but most abandoned it during the 20th century, suggesting a shift in attitudes in
penology towards more restorative practices. Theorist Zedner argues what someone deserves in
terms of the CJS is not necessarily what is judged necessary to protect society resulting in
different positions in relation to punishment. Those three positions will be divided into three
different camps; reductivism (reduces future potential crime), retributivism (from retribution, the
offender deserves to be punished) and reparation (repairs and restores – criminal can make
amends). Theories of punishment can be divided into two differing viewpoints, Utilitarian
( arguably forward thinking, has a positive impact on society as a whole in terms of protecting
and nurturing them with the usage of punishment on criminals) and Retributist view point
( arguably backward thinking, this is because it does not take into consideration of the impact a
certain punishment has on society but instead strives to display the consequences of committing
crime to society.) The manner of which criminals are punished according to their crimes can
arguably reflect society as a whole, and therefore it is not a simple task of determining which
punishment is the most relevant in the 21st century. Responses to crime are often about the
ideology of a society, but also ties in with the culturally significant conventions of what is
acceptable and what is not – the creation of a moral of sorts. Emphasis is based on differing ways
to punish all over the world, and no one society believes in the very same suitable punishment. In
order to assess whether “deterrence remains the most relevant theory of punishment in the 21st
century” the following theories of punishment will be evaluated; Deterrence, Rehabilitation,
Retribution and Denunciation.
Deterrence involves putting people off committing crime through either a sentence of
punishment they themselves have received and found to be unpleasant, or in other words
described as individual deterrence. Or through seeing the unpleasant effects on other people, or
in other words general deterrence. Deterrence theorists argue that the pain of punishment is
justified as long as the punishment avoids further pain to others in the future, however writers
such as Jeremy Bentham argued that only the minimum amount of punishment necessary to
produce the greatest happiness for the greater number of people, and that it is nature and extent
should be measured by the “hedonist calculus”, taking into account issues such as how severe the
pain of punishment was compared to the pleasure of committing crime, and how quickly the pain
, will be generated. Arguably, this form of punishment takes the utilitarian stance by striving for
the greater good and in punishment terms you should punish people so that others are put off
from committing crimes in the future as that will save a potential victims from pain and potential
future criminals from punishment, therefore a harsh sentence is justified for deterrence purposes
but only as much as is necessary to achieve this. According to Bentham, general deterrence is
when “The punishment suffered by the offender presents to everyone an example of what he
himself will have to suffer, if he is guilty of the same offence.” However historically
punishments have often been arbitrary and overly severe like being hung, drawn and quartered or
shipped to another country for a relatively minor crime. Essentially the system of punishment
has moved from severity to certainty with a more consistent tariff approach. In similarity, Cesare
Beccaria, an Italian philosopher believed that punishment was too harsh and people of lower
status were often treated much more harshly. He believed punishment should be measured to fit
the severity of the crime, and that offenders are able to make decisions based on rational choice,
uninfluenced by their social or personal conditions such as poverty, and so the extent of
punishment should be graduated to fit the severity of the crime and not the nature of the
individual criminal. Worse crimes should equal worse punishments regardless of who committed
them. Stating famously “Punishments and the means adopted for inflicting them should,
consisted with proportionality, be so selected as to make the most efficacious and lasting
impression on the minds of men with the least torment to the body of the condemned. In
analysis, there are a number of difficulties with general deterrence theories according to Von
Hirsch, taking a more modern critical approach, who questioned how one is able to decide how
severe punishments have to be in order to make people decide not to commit offences? And if all
offences are rationally assessed, what about those offences where there is a high degree of
emotions? In the 1970s the Home Office undertook a review of existing studies of deterrence, the
conclusion argued that there should be no expectations of general deterrence, which doesn’t take
into account the rights of man and lack the moral compass would effectively be a suitable
punishment. Even though there have been legal instances when deterrence worked, the findings
cannot be generalizable due to the conditions it was investigated in. Conclusively stating
“implementing an official deterrence policy can be no more than a shot in the dark, or a political
decision to pacify ‘public sentiment’, and so therefore Retributivism can be seen as a more
effective alternative approach to punishment in the CJS. This argues that punishment is justified
because people have made the voluntary choice to commit crime, therefore convicted criminals
are morally responsible for their actions, and should be blamed, and censured by the state in the
form of punishment as a result. Individual deterrence are often found in modern justifications of
punishment. However, examples show this does not often work. In the early 1980s Wiliam
Whitelaw, home secretary in the first Thatcher administration announced the introduction of a
new regime in juvenile detention centers of which would provide a “short, sharp shock£ to those
on the receiving end and, consequently, would be more effective in preventing future
reoffending. There have been similar experiments in the USA with what are referred to generally
as “Boot camps”. The Home Office’s own evaluation of the initiative was that the regimes were
no more effective than those they had replaced, concluding that “by themselves, (boot camps)
typically do not have an effect on participants odds of recidivism”. In the United States the
“three strikes and you’re out” sentence was imposed in the 1980s and 1990s, the idea that the
