Introduction:
Criminal Justice, as a system for enforcing and sentencing according to law and statute, has long been dominated by various philosophies that fall into and out of favor based on the criminal climate. These philosophies provide a guiding framework to the operations of the criminal justice system and help dictate the particular sentences imposed. They establish particular models of punishment and are aimed are particular views and definitions of the criminal justice system. They also have particular strengths and weaknesses as the criminal justice system has long modeled. As a result of all this each philosophy will be considered in detail within this paper.
Defined:
To examine and discuss each of the primary philosophies guiding the criminal justice system, one must begin with a definition of each. For the purposes of this paper concern will focus on the four primary philosophies of criminal justice. They are as follows: Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, and Retribution. Deterrence is defined as “A sentencing philosophy seeking to prevent criminal acts by making an example of persons convicted of crimes”[1]. The key thing to this particular philosophy is the idea of the criminal as an example preventing future crime. Incapacitation, meanwhile, is a completely different sentencing philosophy that views sentencing as serving to remove criminals from civilized society. Thus it pictures such things as incarceration and capital punishment as helping to eliminate the presence of criminals in society.
Retribution is the third key philosophy guiding the criminal justice system and envisions punishment being made proportional to the crime committed. That is to say it views as necessary the balance of punishment to criminal act. The final and fourth criminal philosophy of significance is rehabilitation, which differs significantly from the preceding three philosophies. Rehabilitation views sentencing and criminal justice as means to correct, cure, or otherwise fix the criminal. Thus it would view treatments and therapy as means of treating criminal conduct. With this in mind it is now time to examine the real world application of these philosophies to the criminal justice model.
In Practice:
With the definitions of the various philosophies in mind, particularly the differences inherent in each it should be apparent that the real-world application of each would also vary. To begin with deterrence would act to punish an individual, say a bank robber, through punishment intended to prevent future criminal conduct (an example of specific or general deterrence depending on the larger purpose of the act). In this instance such punishment as imprisonment is intended to deter repeat behavior. Incapacitation with its desire to remove the criminal from civilization at large would in the instance of the previously mentioned bank robber view imprisonment as removing a troubled element from society. Instead of attempting to deter future misconduct, incapacitation in this instance would view punishment simply as cleansing society of criminal presence.
Retribution, viewing criminal punishment and sentencing as a proportional redress of criminal behavior, would advocate criminal punishment for the bank robber proportional to the evil of the crime. In this particular case the bank robber’s potential prison sentence would be tailored to a degree considered fitting for the crime committed (and fines might also be attached). The final philosophy mentioned earlier, rehabilitation, meanwhile might view alternatives existing to the various punishments suggested by the other philosophies. In this scenario, instead of sentencing the bank robber to prison (where he might pick up additional criminal skills) rehabilitation might attempt to find creative alternatives such as community service and therapy.
The real world application of these various philosophies by the elements of the criminal justice system (the police, courts, and corrections systems) is as varied as the definition of each philosophy. As the above examples show, the application of sentencing and punishment by the various wings of the criminal justice apparatus in large depends on the objective of each philosophy. That is to say the punishment and aims of the courts, police, and corrections differs based on the end objective of the respective philosophy they hold-whether it be punishment or rehabilitation. With that said the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the four key philosophies will now be examined.
Strengths and Weaknesses:
The real world application of the various criminal sentencing philosophies has, like any real world application of any idea, revealed both strengths and weaknesses for each. To begin with the Deterrence philosophy has, in the general deterrence model, proven somewhat effective in deterring the commission of acts by potential criminals through the punishment of another criminal. However, as the textbook indicated, studies of the general deterrence model have shown both promise and inconclusiveness (with some studies indicating that the certainty of sentencing deters more than the severity). Meanwhile the textbook also indicated that the specific deterrence model (based on deterring the actual convicted criminal) does not effectively deter future criminal acts. Thus its strength lies in the ability to potentially deter future criminals but its weakness in the inconclusive nature of its success.
The sentencing philosophy of incapacitation meanwhile has different strengths and weaknesses. This philosophy, which views the removal of criminals from society as the purpose of the Criminal Justice system, is strong in the area of removing criminals from the ability to commit further crime. However it is weak in that it cannot completely remove criminals from society (since the only permanent removal would involve execution-not appropriate in all crimes) and in that it is economically unsound (due to the number of prison facilities it would advocate for purposes of incarceration).
Retribution or the sentencing philosophy of proportional punishment to crime meanwhile has its own strengths and weaknesses. Among its strengths retribution nominally designs punishments to fit the crime and address that particular criminal behavior. However it possesses a number of weaknesses. In particular retribution cannot be effectively designed to address all criminal behavior in a fashion that is necessarily fair and proportional to the criminal conduct in question. Additionally retribution leaves open the question of what punishment is proportional to what crime.
Finally there is the sentencing philosophy of rehabilitation. This criminal justice philosophy, which envisions treating the criminal for whatever condition is assumed to have caused the criminal behavior, is strong in that it addresses criminal behavior in a positive manner. It is also strong in that it seeks to turn criminals into productive citizens once more. Its weakness lies in the fact that it has a questionable efficacy level.
Conclusion:
Criminal justice is guided by various philosophies of punishment and sentencing. They have a variety of end objectives and purposes for punishment and each is uniquely defined and exercised. These sentencing philosophies each have their own strengths and weaknesses and, when carried into effect, create a unique criminal justice model. They are a valuable study and a useful tool for understanding the criminal justice apparatus.
Source:
Inciardi, James. Criminal Justice. 9th Ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2010. 367-437, 580. Print.
