What Are The Impacts Of Punishments For Crimes?

Conversations around crime, policing, the criminal justice system, and incarceration can be complicated. In recent years, more people in the United States have become aware of the roles implicit bias and racism can play in the process.

Interactions with the justice system can be complicated

A therapist can help you process emotions

It may be complex to figure out your belief system around crime and punishment, particularly if you or someone you love has been affected by or convicted of a crime. Learning more about fundamental theories of criminal punishment and their potential impacts may help you to process your thoughts on crime and justice. 

Deterrence

Deterrence, at its core, is the use of strict and intense punishment to deter future crime. Deterrence theory promotes two categories of deterrence mechanisms: specific and general deterrence. With specific deterrence, consequences focus on punishing the person who committed the crime so that they will never commit the crime again in the future. 

With general deterrence, the impact of the punishment is geared towards society as a whole, not the criminal offenders. The goal of general deterrence is to create punishments for crimes that are negative enough to deter other people from similar criminal behavior in the future. 

One famous example of deterrence for certain crimes is the mandatory minimum sentencing programs enacted during the Reagan administration’s “War On Drugs” for people convicted of possessing or selling controlled substances. Other common examples include significant fines or lengthy prison sentences. 

Critics of the deterrence philosophy argue that it does not further justice, as punishments are often disproportionate to the crime committed. Arguments supporting deterrence conclude that justice is not the primary goal, and if the focus is on reducing crime in society, any means to achieve that end is beneficial. 

Incapacitation

Incapacitation measures often appear identical to deterrence measures, but the difference lies in the motivation behind the punishment. With deterrence, the aim is to prevent future crime by using the fear of punishment as a motivating force; incapacitation aims to prevent future crime by taking away a convicted person’s ability to commit the crime again. 

Incapacitation involves limiting a person’s movements, freedoms, or access to make it difficult (if not impossible) to become a repeat offender. The clearest example of incapacitation is the death penalty. Other less extreme examples include house arrest, lengthy prison sentences, electronic monitoring systems restricting movement, curfews, and measures for specific crimes, such as chemically castrating someone convicted of sexual assault.

The premise of incapacitation is often criticized as promoting a dubious assumption that everyone who has committed a crime will commit the same crime again in the future and that incapacitation measures can prevent crime repetition. Incapacitation also raises ethical questions about punishing someone for what they might do, rather than what they have done..

Some evidence suggests that incapacitation may reduce property crimes but not violent crimes. While incapacitation may prevent a particular person from committing a crime a second time, it has not been found to prevent specific crimes from being committed. This situation is often observed with drug-related offenses: as soon as one drug user or dealer is incarcerated, another can often take their place. 

Incapacitation has also been linked to the dramatic increase in the United States prison population, which is disproportionately comprised of people of color, specifically Black people. 

Retribution

While deterrence and incapacitation focus on reducing crime, retribution is concerned with achieving justice. Using punishment as retribution is based on the premise that people consciously choose to break the law and that negative behaviors deserve negative consequences, such as a similar or worse punishment relative to the impact of their crime. This “eye for an eye” philosophy is demonstrated by punishments such as the death penalty for those convicted of murder.

Although the primary goal of retribution is to ensure that people who commit crimes receive a just punishment, research indicates that retributive practices are often found to be unsatisfactory from the perspective of survivors, who are arguably the most impacted by a crime and whose perspective on punishment may be the most important.

The central justification for the use of retribution – that people willingly choose to commit crimes – may also be flawed, as it does not account for societal conditions that may be out of an individual person’s control. Finally, implicit bias can come into play when determining a “just” punishment for a person who has committed a crime, with people of color historically receiving harsher sentences than white people for the same criminal act. 

Rehabilitation

The central premise of rehabilitative punishment directly opposes the main premise of retributive punishment. Rehabilitation theory argues that crime is not a choice people make but a result of situational pressures, mental health conditions, and societal issues. Rehabilitation focuses more on changing people’s behaviors than on achieving any sort of justice. 

Examples of rehabilitation practices include required participation in educational and vocational programs, treatment center placement, mental health counseling, and skills training. 

Rehabilitation programs can often be found directly within the criminal justice system, typically in prisons with built-in counseling, vocational training, and wellness programs for inmates. Research indicates that prisons with these programs are generally more effective at reducing recidivism. These impacts are most pronounced for the highest-risk inmates, with potentially diminishing returns for other inmates.

Inmate risk is usually determined by assessing factors that have been linked to the possibility of committing a future crime upon release, including substance use, family support systems, employment history and potential, a person’s ability to manage their anger, and patterns of “criminal thinking.”

Restorative justice and reparations

Restorative justice is based on the idea that true justice is not about punishing an offender but repairing wrongs committed against the survivor of a crime. Restorative justice typically involves a convicted person making reparations or amends directly to the crime’s survivors, or potentially to a community if no individual impacted persons are impacted. 

Examples of reparations can include returning stolen property, compensating survivors for their loss or expenses related to the crime, attending healing circles, and survivor-offender mediation practices. 

Evidence suggests that restorative justice may reduce criminal behavior and potentially result in higher satisfaction levels for those affected by crimes. The use of reparations has been found to be especially effective when addressing crimes committed by minors and youth, which are the majority of crimes committed in the United States (people tend to commit fewer crimes as they age). 

The restorative justice process, which often hinges on direct interactions between offenders and survivors, may not be as effective in addressing crimes related to domestic or interpersonal violence and abuse. Forgiveness can be problematic in those settings, as it may feed into the abuse cycle. Additionally, critics of restorative justice argue that since reparations often occur outside of the traditional criminal law system, it may deny due process to those accused or convicted of crimes. 

Processing emotions related to crime and punishment 

Being involved in the criminal justice system can be a stressful experience, whether you are the survivor of a crime, someone who has been accused of a crime, a friend or family member of an impacted or accused person, or a facilitator of the system itself, such as a lawyer, judge, or police officer. 

Different forms of criminal punishment can raise different ethical and moral questions, and it can be challenging to figure out what justice and effective crime prevention look like. If you are experiencing intense emotions related to crime and punishment, it may be helpful to talk to a therapist

Online therapy can be more convenient to schedule than traditional in-person therapy appointments, and it may be more financially accessible as well. If you are navigating the criminal justice system with its associated fees and fines, online therapy may be a way of attending therapy that does not add additional stress and complications to your plate. You have the flexibility to schedule appointments at conducive times through video conferences or phone calls; additionally, text messaging is available for in-the-moment support.

Research indicates that there may be no difference in efficacy between accessing online and in-person therapy. One study found that attending online therapy reduced therapy costs and improved mental health care access for inmates in a correctional facility. Online therapy may be a beneficial way of processing strong emotions related to experiences with the criminal justice system.