Different Types Of Punishment

The American Psychological Association defines punishment as “a physically or psychologically painful, unwanted, or undesirable event or circumstance imposed as a penalty on an actual or perceived wrongdoer.” We may often think of punishment as a means of correcting a child’s behavior or punishment dynamics in close relationships, such as one partner giving the other the silent treatment after they argue. 

That said, it can also be worthwhile to examine punishment in the context of the criminal justice system – punishments that can apply to all members of society. Ahead, we’ll delve into the purpose and types of criminal punishment and how those affected by a crime or sentence can gain emotional support.

What is the purpose of criminal punishment?

Criminal punishment is typically a way of attempting to control or reduce crime and criminal behavior. In many cases, criminal punishment is a reactionary response to crimes that have already been committed instead of a crime prevention strategy. However, some people may argue that the existence of criminal punishment is a way to prevent future crime in and of itself. 

A justice system involving criminal punishment is a form of social control, a method of maintaining an orderly society and communicating and enforcing agreed-upon universal standards of right and wrong. Societies and cultures may consider different acts to be crimes and different responses to be punishments – we may even see such variation within a society, such as the criminalization of cannabis use and abortion in some U.S. states but not others.

Criminal punishments typically tend to fall into one of five categories that have been well-established in criminal law. Learning more about these categories can enhance your understanding of the criminal justice system and raise ethical questions about the role punishment should play in society. 

The main types of criminal punishment

For example, long prison sentences can deter and incapacitate, while community service can fall under the umbrella of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Moral and ethical considerations of many of these acts continue to be debated among legal scholars, activists, politicians, and the general public. 

Deterrence

Deterrence is the use of harsh punishments to deter future crime. The deterrence theory is split into two categories: specific and general. 

Specific deterrence focuses on the person who committed a crime and on punishing them to discourage them from committing the same crime again. General deterrence focuses on societal perception of the crime committed, intending to make an example of the person who committed the crime so that other people will be similarly deterred from participating in that kind of behavior. 

Examples of deterrence include lengthy prison sentences and hefty fines. One more well-known instance of deterrence is the implementation of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders during President Ronald Reagan’s “War on Drugs.” 

Critics of the deterrence approach argue that punishments are often disproportionate to the impact of the crime, while proponents of deterrence counter with the rationale that the punishments are justified based on what a lack of punishment may lead to (similar or worse crimes). 

Incapacitation

The incapacitation approach to criminal punishment could be described as taking the deterrence approach one step further, at least regarding specific deterrence. Incapacitation refers to taking away a person’s ability to ever commit a particular crime again, typically by impeding their movements or access related to the crime committed. 

Examples of incapacitation include the death penalty, lifetime imprisonment, house arrest, curfews, and electronic monitoring. Some more well-known instances of incapacitation for certain crimes are revoking a person’s license after they have been convicted of drinking and driving or chemically castrating someone convicted of sexual assault. 

The use of incapacitation is based on the belief that a societal legal system has the ability and the obligation to prevent future crimes from past criminal offenders. Incapacitation has historically been a more popular punitive approach in politics and the media, though it has led to a rise in mass incarceration in the United States. 

Incapacitation receives criticism for operating on the assumption that everyone who has committed a crime will commit more crimes in the future. Alana Barton, a criminology researcher, argues in the Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities that “even if the methods of prediction were accurate, there are naturally moral and ethical questions about incarcerating individuals for what they may do as opposed to what they have actually done.” 

Retribution

While deterrence and incapacitation focus on reducing crime, the retribution approach focuses on achieving justice for crimes committed – though it should be noted that justice can have different meanings to different people. It is based on the premise that breaking the law is a rational and conscious decision people make and that negative behaviors deserve negative consequences proportional to the crime. 

Retributive theory argues that every person convicted of a crime should receive a similar or worse punishment relative to the impact of the crime, regardless of circumstance. This “eye for an eye” mentality is reflected in punishments like the death penalty for convicted murderers. Retributive punishment can raise some ethical questions:

• Who decides what punishment is just for a particular crime?
• How can crimes and related punishments be ranked in order of severity?
• Is crime a rational and conscious choice? Or is society set up in such a way that underlying dynamics and conditions may lead certain groups of people to commit more crimes?
• Does retribution prevent crime from happening again?
• Is retribution a satisfactory punishment method from the point of view of crime survivors?

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is staked on the opposite premise of retribution. The rehabilitation approach assumes that crime is not a choice people make but is brought about by societal issues, mental health conditions, and situational problems or pressures. Essentially, rehabilitation theory argues that everyone wants to be a good person, and nobody would willingly commit crimes; however, for some, crime seems to be the best (or only) option. 

A rehabilitation approach focuses on changing a convicted criminal’s behavior, not necessarily on punishing them. These reform processes can include treatment center placement, participation in educational and vocational programs, skills training, mental health counseling, and more.

Critics of rehabilitation argue that it pushes the pendulum too far in the other direction from retribution, i.e., that it ascribes too much of the motivation to commit a crime to societal forces and not enough to individual choices. Rehabilitation methods also focus on changing the individual, not the social conditions that purportedly led to the criminal act, so rehabilitation may not be effective. 

Restorative justice/reparations

Restorative justice is rooted in the idea that people who commit crimes should repair the wrong they have done, focusing on the experience of the crime’s survivors or impacted persons. Reparations can also be made to a community as a whole if there are no individual survivors or the affected persons do not want to be involved in the reparations process. Reparations can include:

• Returning stolen property
• Compensating for a loss
• Reimbursing expenses related to the crime, including legal fees
• Providing services
• Paying a fine to a public fund
• Participating in survivor-offender mediation
• Engaging in family or group conferencing
• Taking part in healing, peacemaking, or sentencing circles
• Attending community panels
• Establishing restorative prisons

Critics of the restorative justice process argue that it can put undue pressure on crime survivors to forgive the people who hurt them and that, since many of the reparative procedures occur outside of the traditional legal system, it may deny due process to people who have committed crimes.  

Processing experiences related to crime and punishment

Navigating our society's crime and punishment system can be complex. If you or a loved one is impacted by a crime, has been accused of a crime, or is involved in the criminal justice system in another way, such as through your profession, you may be experiencing high stress levels.

Talking to a licensed and accredited therapist could ease your emotional burden. With online therapy, you can schedule appointments at your convenience, and the process may be less expensive than traditional in-person therapy – a key consideration for someone navigating the legal system, which can take a toll on one’s finances.

Online therapy may be as effective as in-person therapy when addressing emotional concerns. One study found that online mental health services reduced therapy costs and improved access to counseling for inmates in a correctional facility. If you are involved in the justice system, online therapy may be a helpful way of finding support.