Compare And Contrast The Four Goals Of Punishment

The four goals of punishment that a judge will consider, when imposing a sentence are: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution.
These four justifications of criminal punishment have varied in main ways. While closely associated with utilitarianism, the deterrence and incapacitation strive to reduce imminent crime. Deterrence struggles to generate crime more costly, so less crime would transpire. Incapacitation does not attempt to modify behavior through rising cost; but simply eradicate the offender from society. Because offenders that are in prison cannot cause harm to those of us that are still in society. Rehabilitative assumes crime is definite by social forces and not the choices of criminals. Retribution proclaims that punishments should be equal with the moral gravity of offenses.
General deterrence claims that cumulative risk of
Making sanctions severe, certain, immediate sends a message to citizens that crime would not be accepted. People respond to deterring incentives (Becker 1968).
According to deterrence, criminals are not any different than a law-abiding citizen. Criminals rationally maximize their own egotism subject to controls prices and incomes that appears in the marketplace and elsewhere” (Rubin 1980). By continually building up the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment that would help the utilitarian goal of crime reduction. Crime reduction is the most significant factor in punishment, under the utilitarian model.
Incapacitation does not involve any expectations about the criminal’s rationalism of the criminal’s behavior. Incarceration is valuable because the physical control of incarceration stops the commission of additional crimes against society throughout the length of the sentence. Under this model, reducing crime is the most important factor is setting