As described by John E. Conklin (353), the modern criminal justice system in the United States is based upon several rationales including the belief that the threat of punishment dissuades potential offenders from breaking the law, locking criminals up keeps them from victimizing more people, the notion that those who violate the law deserve punishment, and the perception that offenders can be reformed or rehabilitated through treatment. Each of these approaches has some value, but is generally recognized according to Conklin (356-357), that deterrence in and of itself does not have the desired impact because many offenders do not anticipate serious punishment or are acculturated to life in prison.
Deterrence works to the extent that sufficient fear of severe penalties or incarceration exists and the extent that police are able to mount an effective physical presence in areas where crimes are common (Conklin 361). This approach assumes that individuals may commit crimes opportunistically and that eliminating such opportunities will reduce offenses.
The incapacitation strategy is one calling for custodial control of convicted offenders and it appears to work if offenders are repeaters, for offenders who are taken off the street are not immediately replaced by other offenders and "prison does not increase crime by changing inmates in ways that offset the reduction of crime from incapacitation" (Conklin 366). The theory of retribution or just desserts proposes that offenders should be punished because they deserve to suffer for the harm that they have caused. It assumes that "offenders freely choose to break the law and know that punishment might result from their actions" (Conklin 368). The theory of rehabilitation in contrast embraces "the restoration of criminals to a law abiding way of life through treatment" (Conklin 379). This particular theory assumes that to some extent, individuals commit offen
...