Deterrence Theory Of Prison Sentencing

This week’s reading focuses on the various types of sentencing theories, the types of sentencing options, and how they are applied. I found the just deserts and retribution perspectives to be interesting. While these theories are similar in their favoring of proportionality in sentencing, they differ in terms of when prison sentences should be imposed and the length of prison sentences (when they are imposed).
Retributionists believe that individuals that cause harm should be inflicted with the same level of pain and that prisons strictly used for punishment. Retribution does not seek to target what has caused the individual to result in committing crime and does not care about what happens after an offender has served their sentence (Cullen
and Johnson, 2016). The concept of retribution faces several challenges. The prison system is very inconsistent; some are run very well while others are poorly run. Retribution also requires the acknowledgement that individuals can freely choose whether or not to break the law, setting aside that science has showed a connection between individual traits and social circumstances and the likelihood of antisocial behavior (Cullen and Johnson, 2016).
It was also very interesting to read about the impact of Zimbardo’s prison experiment on the focus of corrections.
Prison alone, can be very dangerous in terms of punishment of offenders. Labeling theory predicts that by treating individuals like offenders, a number of factors can be set into motion that increase criminal involvement (Cullen and Johnson, 2016). Sampson and Laub also found that serving time in prison weakens social bonds, which can lead to increased recidivism rates. Since both of these concepts to not consider rehabilitation’s role in changing behavior (which can in turn possibly reduce recidivism), I would disagree with both of these
concepts.
The idea of the Justice Model seemed to be the best option due to the combination of punishment and rehabilitation. The original model placed an emphasis on making rehabilitation programs available, but not mandatory. Rehabilitation programs tend to be more effective when individuals are in them because they would like to change, not because they are forced to be (Cullen and Johnson, 2016). However, advocates for the justice model did not consider if it’s goals could be achieved within a prison setting. When implemented within prison, punishment became a central focus once more. The creation of determinate sentences lead to not whether or not the punishment would be given but what it could be which lead to harsher punishments (Cullen and Johnson, 2016). Prison conditions also continued to deteriorate due to the focus of rehabilitation and social welfare being replaced by punishment and custody; this lead to even worse conditions and overcrowding. Deterrence was another topic discussed within the readings this week.
Deterrence theory suggests that if punishments increase, crime rates should decrease. General deterrence is the idea that by punishing one offender for a crime, other members of the community will be deterred from criminal behavior as well. Specific deterrence targets the individual; it uses punishment for one crime to deter the individual from preventing further crimes (Cullen and Johnson, 2016). Certainty and severity of punishment are the two primary concepts within deterrence theory. However, this theory assumes that every offender completes a cost-to-benefit analysis prior to committing crime. Deterrence theory predicts that more police, arrests, and incarceration would lower the crime rate. According to Cullen and Johnson, the only punishment variable that shows to have strong effects on deterrence is the level of incarceration; however this could be a measure of incapacitation not deterrence
(2016).
Most interventions do not affect deterrence and are seen as intermediate punishment. By punishing offenders in the community, the system could be tough on crime but also save money. However, intervention and rehabilitation programs would only be cost effective if offenders were deterred but if not they would most likely recidivate and end up in prison anyways (Cullen and Johnson, 2016). It was determined that intermediate punishment is unlikely to deter criminal behavior more effectively than regular probation and prison placements. Unfortunately high recidivism rates among offenders that go to prison prove to be a problem for deterrence theory due many offenders not becoming “scared straight” from their prison experience and developing tendencies that can lead to recidivism once released (Cullen and Johnson, 2016).