The Rational Justification of Criminal Punishment

Introduction

Criminal punishment is a contentious issue, with debates surrounding its effectiveness and ethical legitimacy. While punishment aims to hold offenders accountable and deter future crimes, its rational justification is questionable.

This inquiry explores the justification of criminal punishment, examining its purposes, outcomes, and ethical implications. By scrutinizing the complexities of punishment, we can determine whether it is a rational response to criminal behaviour or a relic of retributive instincts.

What is Punishment?

H.L.A. Hart offers what is widely regarded as the classical definition of punishment in scholarly literature. Drawing from Antony Flew’s work ¹, Hart stated that the standard or central case of punishment comprises five essential elements;²

1. It must involve pain or other consequences typically considered unpleasant.
2. It must be for a violation of legal rules or an offense against legal norms.
3. It must be directed at an actual or supposed offender for their offense.
4. It must be intentionally administered by human beings other than the offender.
5. It must be imposed and administered by an authority established by a legal system against which the offense is committed.

Therefore, punishment is the imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant consequence upon an individual or group for a perceived wrong or offense, with the intention of inflicting retribution, deterring future wrongdoing, rehabilitating the individual, or restraining them from causing further harm. Punishment can take various forms, including criminal penalties, civil sanctions, social consequences, and educational or corrective measures. Ultimately, punishment aims to hold individuals accountable for their actions, maintain social order, and promote justice, although its effectiveness and ethical justification are subject to ongoing debate and critique.

Theories of Punishment

1. Retribution Theory of Punishment:

Retribution in criminal justice refers to the philosophy that offenders should receive punishments that are proportionate to their crimes. The term ‘retribution’ originates from the Latin word ‘retributio’ meaning ‘repayment’ or ‘recompense’. In modern usage, it specifically refers to ‘evil given for evil done’ reflecting the belief that individuals should face consequences commensurate with their actions. H.L.A Hart defined retributivism as ‘the application of the pains of punishment to an offender who is morally guilty’.³

See also: Unpacking Nigeria’s Same-sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act

In the retributivist theory of punishment, the act of punishment is viewed as a form of ‘payback’ or recompense for the crimes or offenses committed by an individual. Hegel, a prominent philosopher of the early nineteenth century, presented a distinctive perspective on retributivism. According to Hegel’s theory of punishment, the primary aim is not merely to inflict suffering on the offender as a form of payback, but rather to negate or annul the crime itself. In other words, punishment serves to cancel out the moral wrongdoing inherent in the offense.

Indeed, another school of thought within retributivism views punishment as a means of eliminating the ‘unfair advantage’ gained by criminals through the commission of a crime. According to this perspective, when individuals commit crimes, they often obtain some form of benefit or advantage at the expense of others. For example, a thief gains possession of someone else’s property unlawfully, thereby benefiting unfairly. In response, the punishment imposed on the offender is intended to remove or nullify this unjust advantage. his perspective on retributivism underscores the idea that punishment should not only serve to address the moral wrong of the offense but also to rectify the unfair advantage gained by the offender through the commission of the crime.

In legal contexts, retribution is often manifested through sentencing practices that aim to impose penalties that are perceived as just and appropriate based on the nature of the crime and the culpability of the offender. This may involve imprisonment, fines, community service, or other forms of punishment intended to hold offenders accountable for their actions.

Some of the philosophers who argued for the retributive theory of punishment are;

1. Immanuel Kant: A key figure in the retributive theory of punishment, Kant argued that punishment should be based on the principle of equality, where the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. He also believed that punishment should be based on the moral wrong committed, rather than on the consequences of the crime. Immanuel Kant’s theory of retribution is a philosophical framework that justifies punishment based on the principles of desert, proportionality, and equality.

According to Kant, punishment is justified because it is deserved by the wrongdoer, and the ruler has the right to inflict punishment on the subject who has committed a crime. However, punishment cannot be justified solely for its potential benefits, such as reform or deterrence. Instead, the principle of equality ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the crime, balancing the scales of justice. The principle of retribution also dictates that punishments should inflict a harm similar to the kind inflicted on the victims, following the law of retribution (lex talionis), where the punishment mirrors the crime, following the principle of ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.’

Overall, Kant’s theory emphasizes that punishment should be proportional to the crime and inflicted because the wrongdoer deserves it, not for any other reason. He argues that punishments should be fair, equal, and not inflicted for utilitarian purposes, providing a moral and philosophical foundation for understanding the purpose and justification of punishment.

2. H.L.A Hart: H.L.A. Hart’s philosophy on punishment presents a thoughtful and balanced approach, skilfully navigating the complexities of retributive and utilitarian theories. By prioritizing moral retribution while acknowledging the importance of social utility, Hart’s work offers a nuanced understanding of punishment that resonates deeply. He argues that punishment should primarily focus on distributing justice to the guilty, ensuring that they face the consequences of their actions, while also serving a purpose that benefits society as a whole.

In finding a middle ground between these two theories, Hart’s philosophy provides a comprehensive and insightful framework for understanding the multifaceted nature of punishment, shedding light on its moral, social, and practical implications. His work has had a profound impact on the philosophy of law, continuing to influence and inform discussions around punishment and justice to this day.

3. Thomas Aquinas, a prominent medieval philosopher and theologian, offered a comprehensive perspective on punishment that incorporated principles of reformation, societal protection, and proportionality. Aquinas believed that punishment should serve multiple purposes.

Firstly, he argued that punishment should aim to reform the criminal. Rather than simply seeking retribution or deterrence, Aquinas emphasized the importance of guiding the wrongdoer towards repentance and moral improvement. He viewed punishment as an opportunity for the offender to recognize their wrongdoing, undergo penance, and ultimately reintegrate into society as a morally upright individual.

Secondly, Aquinas recognized the necessity of punishment in protecting society from harm. By imposing consequences for criminal behaviour, society could deter both the offender and others from engaging in similar acts, thereby maintaining order and upholding the common good. Punishment served as a means of preventing further wrongdoing and safeguarding the well-being of the community.

Lastly, Aquinas emphasized the principle of proportionality in punishment. He believed that the severity of the punishment should correspond to the gravity of the crime committed. Punishments should not be excessively harsh or disproportionate to the offense, but rather should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the offender and the harm caused by their actions. Proportionality ensured fairness and justice in the administration of punishment, avoiding undue cruelty or leniency.

4. John Stuart Mill: Mill believed that punishment should be used to deter others from committing similar crimes. He also believed that punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. A prominent 19th-century philosopher and advocate of utilitarianism, Mill contributed to the discourse on punishment with a focus on deterrence and proportionality.

Mill asserted that punishment should serve as a deterrent against future criminal behaviour. He believed that the threat of punishment acts as a deterrent by dissuading individuals from engaging in criminal acts out of fear of facing negative consequences. By punishing offenders, society sends a clear message that certain behaviours are unacceptable and will be met with punitive measures, thus deterring others from committing similar crimes.

Additionally, Mill emphasized the principle of proportionality in punishment. He argued that the severity of punishment should correspond to the gravity of the crime committed. Punishments should be neither too harsh nor too lenient but should be commensurate with the harm caused by the offense. Proportionality ensures that the punishment fits the crime and upholds principles of fairness and justice.

Criticisms

1. Subjectivity of Morality: The subjectivity of morality refers to the fact that moral beliefs and values vary among individuals and societies. This variation makes it challenging to establish a universal moral standard for determining punishable crimes and appropriate punishments within the framework of retributive justice. Different interpretations of right and wrong can lead to disagreements over what constitutes a crime deserving of punishment and what level of punishment is appropriate.
2. Distinction between Illegal and Immoral Crimes: While some crimes are universally recognized as both illegal and immoral (e.g., murder, theft), others may lack a clear moral dimension. Lesser offenses like traffic violations may be illegal but not necessarily immoral in the same way. This poses a challenge for retributivism, as determining proportionate punishment becomes more complex when the moral gravity of the offense is less clear.
3. Reluctance to Consider Mercy or Pardons: Retributivist theories emphasize the importance of individuals receiving their just deserts for their actions. As a result, there is often reluctance to consider mercy or pardons, even if they may serve a greater good or promote societal harmony. This stance prioritizes justice over considerations of compassion or forgiveness, which may conflict with other moral values.
4. Modern Legal Practices: In modern legal systems, practices like plea bargaining may result in reduced sentences for criminals in exchange for admitting guilt. While these practices may be efficient and expedite legal processes, they may deviate from the principle of proportionality in punishment as prescribed by retributivism. This raises questions about the consistency and fairness of punishments within the retributive framework.

2. Deterrence Theory of Punishment.

The deterrence theory of punishment posits that the relationship between the purpose of punishment (aim) and the method used to achieve it (punishment itself) is conceptual, rather than causal. This theory assumes that individuals are rational and motivated by self-interest, seeking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

According to this theory, potential offenders will weigh the potential benefits and consequences of committing a crime before deciding whether to do so. The threat of punishment is intended to tip the scales, making the consequences outweigh the benefits and thus deterring individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour. This theory relies on the idea that people make rational choices and will be dissuaded from criminal activity by the fear of punishment.

There are two concepts of deterrence: Individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence aims to prevent a specific offender from reoffending by imposing unpleasant consequences, encouraging them to change their behaviour. General deterrence seeks to discourage the general public from committing crimes by punishing offenders, thereby sending a strong message that similar actions will result in severe penalties. Both concepts rely on the fear of punishment to maintain social order and reduce criminal activities.

See also: Jurisprudence like a Ragbag of Speculations and Hypothesis

Propounders of the Theory

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794): Cesare was an Italian philosopher and jurist who played a significant role in shaping the modern concept of punishment. He is regarded as the founder of deterrence theory of criminal punishment. His influential book, ‘On Crimes and Punishments’ (1764), advocated for criminal justice reform and introduced several key ideas. Cesare Beccaria’s criminal justice philosophy is centred on the principle of utility, which holds that punishment should aim to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He believed that the primary goal of punishment is deterrence, to prevent others from committing similar crimes. Beccaria also advocated for proportionality, arguing that punishments should be proportionate to the severity of the crime. Additionally, he strongly opposed torture and capital punishment, considering them to be cruel, ineffective, and unjust, and believed they should be abolished. Overall, his ideas aimed to create a fairer and more effective criminal justice system, focusing on prevention and rehabilitation rather than solely on punishment.

Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham’s deterrence theory of punishment is grounded in his rational choice perspective, which assumes that people are rational beings who seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. According to this theory, potential offenders will calculate the benefits and consequences of an offense before deciding to engage in it. The theory emphasizes the importance of certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment in deterring criminal behaviour. Certainty of punishment refers to the likelihood of being caught and punished for a crime, and when individuals believe there is a high chance of being caught, they are less inclined to partake in criminal activities. Celerity, or swiftness, of punishment refers to the speed at which offenders are apprehended and penalized following an offense, and delays in apprehension and punishment can significantly weaken the deterrent effect.

Severity of punishment refers to the degree of consequence for offending, and it serves as a deterrent by heightening the perceived risks associated with criminal behaviour. The theory also distinguishes between specific deterrence, which is the concept of deterrence through first-hand punishment, and general deterrence, which is the concept that witnessing the punishment of an individual or group second-hand can discourage a community or society from engaging in similar criminal acts.

Finally, the principle of proportionality is embedded within classical deterrence, which asserts that the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offense. This aims to ensure that penalties are neither excessively harsh nor too lenient, preserving public trust in the legal system and safeguarding the fundamental morals and values of society.

Critics

1. Karl Marx: Karl Marx argued that deterrence theory overlooks the economic and class-based origins of crime. He believed that punishment primarily serves to uphold the power and interests of the dominant class, rather than addressing the underlying social and economic conditions that lead to criminal behaviour. For Marx, the justice system functions as a tool to reinforce class structures and maintain control over the working class, rather than as a means to achieve genuine justice or deter crime effectively.
2. David Garland critiqued deterrence theory for its excessive focus on punishment, arguing that it neglects the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society. He believed that this approach perpetuates a culture of control and punishment, failing to address the social factors that contribute to criminal behaviour and ultimately leading to a more punitive society rather than one that fosters genuine reform and social harmony.

3. Reformative Theory of Punishment

The Reformative Theory of Punishment emphasizes rehabilitating and reforming offenders, rather than just punishing them. It addresses underlying causes of criminal behaviour, such as mental health issues, addiction, and lack of education, through individualized treatment and programs. This approach prioritizes protecting society by helping offenders become productive citizens, taking a humane and restorative approach that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration.

Francis Lieber is indeed considered the father of the rehabilitation theory of punishment. He was a prominent thinker who argued that the primary goal of punishment should be to reform and rehabilitate offenders, rather than simply punishing them. Lieber’s ideas were influential in shaping the development of criminal justice systems and continue to influence contemporary approaches to punishment and rehabilitation.

Lieber’s rehabilitation theory emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour, such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequality. He believed that punishment should be tailored to the individual offender’s needs and circumstances, with the goal of helping them to become productive and law-abiding citizens. Lieber’s work laid the foundation for modern rehabilitation programs, which often include elements such as education, job training, counselling, and social support. His ideas continue to influence criminal justice policy and practice, and his legacy as the father of the rehabilitation theory remains an important part of the history of criminal justice thought.

Other philosophers supporting this theory are;

1. Cesare Lombroso: He believed that criminal behaviour is driven by biological and psychological factors, such as genetics, brain structure, and environment. He advocated for punishment to focus on reform and rehabilitation through education, training, psychological treatment, counselling, and social rehabilitation and reintegration. Lombroso’s work emphasized understanding the root causes of crime and addressing them through humane and scientific approaches, laying the foundation for modern criminology and rehabilitation programs.
2. Enrico Ferri: Advocated for the ‘social defines’ approach, prioritizing society’s protection through rehabilitation and reintegration, and emphasizing that punishment should focus on preparing offenders for re-entry into society, rather than simply punishing them. This approach prioritizes public safety and rehabilitation over retribution, and emphasizes the importance of preparing offenders to re-join society as productive citizens.
3. Paul Cornelius: Advocated for the ‘therapeutic’ approach, emphasizing treatment and rehabilitation, and arguing that punishment should focus on addressing the root causes of crime, rather than just punishing the symptoms. His approach prioritizes understanding and addressing the underlying factors that lead to criminal behaviour, such as mental health issues, addiction, or social and economic factors, to prevent recidivism and promote rehabilitation.

Criticisms of the Reformative Theory of Punishment

1. Andrew von Hirsch: Hirsch opined that the Reformative Theory is too soft on crime, neglecting the importance of retribution and just deserts. By focusing solely on rehabilitation, it fails to hold offenders accountable for their actions and neglects the need for punishment to reflect the moral outrage of society. This approach undermines the deterrent effect of punishment and fails to provide justice for victims and their families.
2. James Q. Wilson: According to him, the Reformative Theory prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, which is a misguided approach. By downplaying the importance of punishment, it undermines the deterrent effect and fails to recognize that punishment is a necessary component of justice. Rehabilitation should be a secondary consideration, not the primary goal of punishment.
3. Ernest van den Haag: Ernest is of the view that the Reformative Theory is overly optimistic about the possibility of reform and ignores the complexity of human behaviour. It assumes that all offenders can be rehabilitated, which is simply not true. Some offenders are dangerous and incorrigible, and the theory fails to account for this reality. By prioritizing rehabilitation, it puts society at risk by releasing dangerous offenders back into the community.
4. Robert Martinson: The Reformative Theory relies too heavily on rehabilitation programs, which are often ineffective and wasteful. The theory assumes that these programs can change offenders’ behaviour, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Many programs are poorly designed, poorly implemented, and fail to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. By prioritizing rehabilitation, the theory neglects the need for punishment to be swift, certain, and severe.
5. Michael Tonry: In his opinion, the Reformative Theory prioritizes the interests of offenders over those of victims and society. It assumes that offenders’ needs are more important than the need for justice and reparation for victims and their families. This approach neglects the harm caused by crime and fails to recognize that punishment is a necessary component of justice. By prioritizing rehabilitation, it puts the interests of offenders above those of victims and society, which is unjust and unacceptable.

4. Incapacitation Theory of Punishment

Incapacitation punishment theory has its roots in banishments, which were a form of punishment where individuals were forced to leave their community or country. Banishments were used in ancient times, including in ancient Greece and Rome, and continued into the Middle Ages. The idea of banishment was to remove the offender from society, thereby protecting the community from harm. This approach was based on the notion that the offender was a threat to the community and that their removal would ensure public safety.

Over time, the concept of banishment evolved into other forms of incapacitation, such as imprisonment, transportation (e.g., to penal colonies), and eventually, incarceration in modern prisons. The underlying idea remained the same: to remove the offender from society and prevent them from causing harm. Incapacitation punishment theory has since developed to include various forms of restriction, such as probation, parole, and community supervision, all aimed at limiting an offender’s ability to commit further crimes.

The incapacitation theory of punishment focuses on preventing offenders from committing further crimes through physical restriction or removal from society. This approach prioritizes public safety and aims to protect the community from dangerous or prolific offenders. Incarceration is the primary method, but in some cases, more severe measures like capital punishment may be used. The goal is to neutralize the offender’s ability to reoffend, thereby preventing harm to others and maintaining social order. This theory is often linked to the ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ approach, emphasizing punishment and protection over rehabilitation or reintegration into society. By removing or restricting the physical ability to reoffend, incapacitation seeks to minimize criminal behaviour and promote community security.

Some supporters of this theory of punishment are;

1. Steven Levitt: He is an American economist and co-author of the book ‘Freakonomics’, who has argued that the decline in crime rates in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s can be attributed, in part, to the incapacitation effect of increased incarceration rates. According to Levitt, by locking up repeat offenders for longer periods, they are unable to commit crimes while incarcerated, thereby reducing crime rates. Levitt’s argument is based on his analysis of crime data and prison populations, which suggests that the incapacitation effect is a significant factor in reducing crime. He estimates that each prisoner incarcerated results in a reduction of 15-20 crimes per year.
2. Malcolm M. Feeley, an American political scientist and criminologist, has indeed made a significant contribution to the discussion of incapacitation theory. His work has explored the concept of selective incapacitation, which involves identifying high-risk offenders and prioritizing their incarceration to maximize public safety. Feeley’s analogy of incapacitation as arbitrage is insightful, as it highlights the idea that society is making a strategic investment in incarceration to reap a return in terms of reduced crime. Just as arbitrageurs seek to exploit price differences in markets, society seeks to exploit the crime-reducing potential of incapacitating high-risk offenders.

Feeley’s work has emphasized the importance of targeting the most dangerous and prolific offenders, rather than relying solely on general deterrence or rehabilitation. By focusing resources on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety, society can optimize its investment in incarceration and achieve greater crime reduction. His ideas have influenced the development of crime control policies and continue to be relevant in ongoing discussions about effective strategies for reducing crime and promoting public safety.

3. Dorothy L. MacKenzie, an American criminologist, has made significant contributions to the field of criminal justice, particularly in the area of incapacitation theory. Her research has focused on the effectiveness of incarceration in reducing crime, and she has argued that incapacitating high-rate offenders is a crucial component of a comprehensive crime control strategy. MacKenzie’s work has shown that incapacitating offenders who continue to commit crimes at high rates is effective in reducing crime, especially when combined with other approaches such as rehabilitation and community supervision. Her research has demonstrated that targeting high-risk offenders and incapacitating them for longer periods can lead to significant reductions in crime rates.

MacKenzie’s multi-tiered approach to crime control emphasizes the importance of combining incapacitation with other strategies, such as:

1. Rehabilitation: to address underlying issues driving criminal behaviour
2. Community supervision: to monitor and support offenders upon release
3. Restorative justice: to address victim needs and promote healing

By combining these approaches, MacKenzie argues that society can achieve a more effective and efficient crime control strategy, one that prioritizes public safety while also addressing the complex needs of offenders and victims alike. Her work has had a lasting impact on the field of criminal justice, shaping policy and practice in areas such as sentencing, corrections, and crime prevention.

Criticisms of Incapacitation Theory

1. Andrew von Hirsch: He criticizes the incapacitation theory of punishment for neglecting proportionality in sentencing, failing to consider the severity of punishment, overlooking the importance of fairness and justice in punishment, and focusing too heavily on protecting society without balancing individual rights and interests. He argues that punishment should be proportionate to the offense, and that severity and fairness should be considered in sentencing, rather than solely relying on incapacitation.
2. Stanley Cohen argues that incapacitation theory’s focus on punishment neglects rehabilitation and reintegration, prioritizing punishment over helping offenders change, address underlying issues, and reintegrate into society. He believes a comprehensive approach should combine punishment with addressing root causes and supporting offenders to become productive members of society.
3. David Garland critiques incapacitation theory for solely focusing on removing offenders without addressing crime’s underlying causes, neglecting social and economic context, and failing to consider factors like poverty, unemployment, and inequality. He argues that incapacitation only treats symptoms, perpetuating a cycle of crime and punishment, and advocates for a comprehensive approach addressing root causes and driving factors.
4. Loic Wacquant argues that incapacitation theory has fuelled mass incarceration and the criminalization of poverty, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. He contends that the theory’s focus on punishment and isolation has led to harsh sentencing laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and a ‘prisonfare state’ that prioritizes punishment over social welfare, perpetuating social injustice. Wacquant critiques the theory for blaming individuals for their circumstances, rather than addressing structural issues like poverty and inequality, which contribute to crime. He advocates for a shift in focus from punishment to addressing root causes and promoting social welfare.

Is Criminal Punishment Rationally Justified?

The rational justification of criminal punishment is a complex and multifaceted issue. While punishment may serve various purposes, such as retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation, its effectiveness and ethical legitimacy are subject to debate.

The analysis has revealed that punishment often falls short of its intended goals, perpetuating cycles of violence and recidivism.

Moreover, the arbitrary and disproportionate application of punishment raises concerns about justice and human rights. Ultimately, a rational approach to criminal punishment must prioritize rehabilitation, restorative justice, and addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour.

By revaluating our punitive instincts and embracing a more nuanced understanding of justice, we can strive towards a more equitable and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes human dignity and social welfare over retribution and punishment for its own sake.

Conclusion

While criminal punishment has some rational justifications, its limitations and negative consequences must be acknowledged. A nuanced approach considering multiple perspectives and alternative solutions is necessary for a more equitable and effective criminal justice system.

1 Flew, Antony (1954). “The Justification of Punishment”, in: Philosophy vol.29 (111): pp.291-307

2 Hart, Herbert L.A (2008). “Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment”, in: Punishment and

Responsibility – Essays in the Philosophy of Law: pp.1-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press pgs. 4-5

3 ibid.

---

About Author