Retribution and Rehabilitation in the Criminal Justice System
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 commits a crime has broken this social contract and must "pay" for the "damage" his "breach" has caused, just as if he had broken a commercial contract. Note that his punishment must be commensurate with the crime he committed, just as payment for the breach of a commercial contract must be commensurate with the damages suffered by the other contracting parties. (Pollock-Byrne, 1989, pp. 129-30).
Another justification for retributive justice is that it is nece...