Retributive Theory In Criminal Justice

Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was a key part of U.S. prison policy. Individuals convicted of criminal behavior were encouraged to develop occupational skills and to resolve psychological problems that might interfere with their reintegration into society. Subsequently, many inmates received court sentences that mandated treatment for such problems. However, rehabilitation has taken a back seat to the retributive approach, which sees punishment as a prison's main function. This approach has created explosive growth in the prison population, while having very little effect, if any, on decreasing crime rates. As a result, the United States possesses a higher percentage of its population involved in the criminal justice system in comparison
In accordance with these moral boundaries, there must be established laws or codes of conduct which all citizens are expected to adhere to. Society has ingrained within us the idea that when an individual harms society by deviating from the agreed upon moral code of conduct, they must be punished. The retributive theory present in today’s criminal justice system establishes that the harm caused by the crime must be compensated, and thus balanced, via harm suffered by the person responsible for the initial harm. This idea of retribution is firmly rooted in public opinion, Manuel Castillo, Professor of Law at the University of Granada, writes that this is evident in “expressions such as “I have paid my debt to society,” said by the criminal who has served his sentence” or when it is said that the criminal must pay his due. Ideas on this model of punishment have a place in political theory work as well; in writing on his theory of retributivism, Kant introduces the “right of retaliation”, which he uses it to justify the death penalty. Kant explains that when one commits an act of evil on another, they are also actually committing it onto themselves- because in the end, they must be harshly punished for their wrongdoings. If someone steals from an individual, then they must in turn be stolen from. By being placed in prison,
However, it is evident that this claim is untrue today, when we take a look at the striking racial disparities which are inherent in our nation’s criminal justice system particularly the recidivism rates of minority groups. When determining whether or not a criminal justice system promotes social welfare, one element to take into account is recidivism rates. Recidivism is a consequence that is indicative of the quality of the criminal justice system at hand and is one that our currently criminal justice system is failing to address. Angela Davis wrote in 2003, that more than two million people, out of a world total of nine million, inhabit U.S. prisons, jails, youth facilities, and immigrant detention centers. Davis asks, “are we willing to relegate ever larger numbers of people from racially oppressed communities to an isolated existence marked by authoritarian regimes, violence, disease and technologies of seclusion that produce severe mental instability?” This question reveals that a major flaw existing within the status quo is that the current retributive model conveniently ignores the other factors that contribute to criminal behavior and the institutions that enable those behaviors via social, racial and economic oppression. The punishment model acquits society of any complicity