Presentation on theme: "Criminological thinking on PUNISHMENT"— Presentation transcript:
1Criminological thinking on PUNISHMENT “ a legally approved method designed to facilitate the task of crime control”(Garland)Two opposing ideas over what the purpose of punishment should be:Aim of punishment – prevention of future crimes = REDUCTIVISTThose who look to the past to punish crimes already committed = RETRIBUTIVISTIn practice, most criminal justice systems have these two aims co-existing in an uneasy hybrid combination
2REDUCTIVIST principles Justifies punishment on grounds of its alleged future consequencesSupported by form of moral reasoning known as UTILITARIANISMBy pointing to a future or greater good, reductivist principles focus on the instrumental “ends” of punishmentSo… the avoidance of further crime can be achieved through:deterring potential criminals (DETERRENCE)reforming actual criminals (REFORM + REHABILITATION)keeping actual or potential offenders out of circulation (INCAPACITATION)UTILITARIANISMAdvocated by Jeremy BENTHAM (17148 – 1832)For punishment to reduce future crimes, the pains and unhappiness caused to the offender must be ‘outweighed by the avoidance of unpleasantness to other people in the future – thus making punishment morally right from a utilitarian point of view.’ (Cavadino and Dignan)
3DETERRENCECrime can be discouraged through the public’s fear of punishment they may receive if they break the lawIndividual deterrenceWhen someone finds the experience of punishment so unpleasant that they never wish to repeat the infraction of fear of the consequences (“short sharp treatment”)General deterrenceOffenders are punished not to deter the offenders but to discourage potential offenders
4REFORM and REHABILITATION 19th century development of prison regimes that sought to change the offender through a combination of hard labour and religious instructionRehabilitationMore individualised treatment programmes introduced in 20th century with emergence of welfare state
5Rehabilitation At its height in 1950s and 1960s Criminal behaviour was not a freely willed action but a symptom of some kind of mental illness that should be ‘treated’Mid 1970sResearch showed that ‘nothing worked’But now revival with recent attempts to find ‘what works’Rehabilitation programmes might ‘facilitate change’ rather than ‘coerce and cure’(Cavadino and Dignan)
6IncapacitationOffenders ability to commit further crimes by locking them upNot about changing the offender’s behaviour or about causes of crimeIt is about protecting potential victims as essence of punishment as opposed to rights of offendersSentencing policy – main philosophical justification for imprisonment – ‘prison works’ – takes persistent and serious offenders off the streets and so, it is claimed, reduces the crime rate (Murray) – dramatic growth in prison population in recent yearsMost extreme form of incapacitation = death penalty: sex offenders – surgical or chemical castrationMandatory minimum sentencing – three strikes and you’re out
7RETRIBUTIVIST principles Wrongdoers should be punished because they deserve it, irrespective of any future beneficial consequences“an eye for an eye” 1750BC in BabylonBased on concept of lex talionis = law of retaliationprinciple developed by philosopher Immanuel KANTRevival in the past 30 years of retributivist ideas under guise of ‘just deserts’
8‘Just deserts’1950s/60s – penal system – important element of welfare state’s programme of social engineering – prevent crime through deterring potential offenders and incapacitating actual offenders and it was hoped that treatment programmes would rehabilitate offendersMove by mid 1970s about individual rights – new retributivist argument – just desertsOffenders should be punished only as severely as they deservepunishment fit the crimeIn reality, offenders tend to be already socially disadvantaged so that punishment actually increases equality rather than reducing itSo…should imprisonment be reserved only for serious offenders??
9Sociological explanations of PUNISHMENT Sociologists explore the deeper role that punishment plays in societynumber of competing perspectiveseach one can be informed by a social theorymain theorists – DURKHEIM, MARX, FOUCAULTThe sociology of punishment seeks to understand why and how we punish
10Emile Durkheim – SOCIAL SOLIDARITY Examined relationships between crime, law and punishment to look for mechanisms that created SOCIAL SOLIDARITY.Also called FUNCTIONALISM: whatever aspect of social life is being studied, it must be approached from perspective of discovering what role it performs in preserving social stabilityDurkheim identifies the function of modern punishment in reassuring the public sentimentPunishment is able to play an important political role in maintaining authority
11Karl MARXThe benefits of using a Marxist framework is that it allows us to understand why offenders from the working class are imprisoned and offenders from the middle/upper classes are not.Discriminatory decision-making throughout the whole criminal justice system ensures that the socially advantaged are routinely filtered out: they are given the benefit of the doubt, or are defined as good risks, or simply have access to the best legal advice.Serious punishments such as imprisonment are predominantly reserved for the unemployed, the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, and those who lack social support and personal assets.
12Marxist theory is based upon the idea of class struggle and ideology. Marxist theories tells us then, that the reason we imprison offenders is to control those who are a threat to dominant values.
13Michel FOUCAULT"Disciplinary Punishment," is what Foucault says is practised in the modern era.Disciplinary punishment gives "professionals" (psychologists, programme facilitators, parole officers, etc.) power over the prisoner, most notably in that the prisoner's length of stay depends on the professionals' judgment.Power is on an increasingly individualised level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives.Foucault suggests that a continuum runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives.All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others.
14ActivitiesCompare the differences between reductivists and retributivists over how punishment can be justified and how much punishment ought to be inflictedHow might you apply Marxist ideas to contemporary trends in punishment?What do you think the limits on punishment should be and why?