Retribution & Rhabilitation

This paper will discuss the merits and problems with the theories of punitive reaction (retribution and deterrence) and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. Included within the discussion will be the idea of combining the two into one system, which addresses the aims of both theories.

The punitive reaction theory contains two somewhat separate aspects: retribution and deterrence. This theory focuses on the infliction of suffering upon the convicted person through punishment. The aim of retribution is vengeance, for both the victim and society (LaFave & Scott, 1986, pp. 25-26). The aim of deterrence on the other hand is prevention; punishment is required to deter the convicted person from committing such an act again and to deter other potential perpetrators from committing such an act in the future (LaFave & Scott, 1986, pp. 23-24). The first aspect focuses upon the act committed; the second aspect focuses upon the convicted person and other, potential, criminals.

Retribution is the oldest aim of the criminal justice system. Several justifications have been given for retributive justice. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Rousseau suggested that people in society are bound by an unwritten social contract, whereby they give up a certain amount of individual liberty in return for the safety provided by a group. This social contract theory fits nicely with the idea of retributive justice. The person who comm

. . .
tion principles, with California passing an indeterminate-sentencing law in 1917 (Kadish, Schulhofer, & Paulsen; 1983; p. 205). Since the 1970s, however, rehabilitation has fallen out of favor, for reasons which will be discussed below. Rehabilitation is a method which introduces science into the justice system. It tends to view all criminals as "sick" and in need of treatment. Consequently, the prison system is intended as a means of "treating" these criminals and preparing them for life in society. Thus, rehabilitation advocates have relabelled the prison system as the "corrections system," a label which persists to this day. Where a criminal is sent after being convicted depends upon his "diagnosis," which occurs after the trial phase. From that point on, the prisoner receives treatment according to the diagnosis and is not released from the corrections system until he is "cured" (Menninger, 1988, pp. 50-51). The rehabilitative model eliminated traditional concepts such as moral responsibility and retribution in the criminal justice system. It replaced them with the idea of "sickness" and scientific treatment; punishment was no longer the aim of the system. Its adherents, especially those in the psychological profession, clai
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
What's Neither, LaFave Scott, Schulhofer Paulsen, Hobbes Rousseau, Knecht Gillman, Justice System, Eighth Amendment, California York, justice system, rehabilitative model, pollock-byrne 1989, lafave scott 1986, retributive justice, criminal justice, scott 1986, lafave scott, garland 1990, criminal justice system, Criminal Law, convicted person, Law Processes, social contract, justification retributive justice, pollock-byrne 1989 pp, garland 1990 pp,
Approximate Word count = 2138
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)