Punishment as Crime Prevention

  • Whitley R. P. Kaufman
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 104)

Abstract

The deterrence theory of punishment is more accurately called the crime prevention theory, as deterrence is one of several possible methods of inflicting harm for the sake of crime prevention. Deterrence includes General Deterrence (punishing one person to influence others) and Specific Deterrence (punishing one person to deter him from committing future wrongs). Other methods include incapacitation (physically preventing the wrongdoer from committing future crimes) and rehabilitation (inculcating moral values in the wrongdoer in order that he not commit future wrongs). The basic objection to any crime prevention theory is that it appears to presuppose the utilitarian moral theory. But it is widely accepted that utilitarianism is an unacceptable moral theory, for it violates basic moral intuitions such as the principle that one may not use people ameans to the greater social good, or that the end does not justify the means. If the utilitarian theory is rejected, then specific and general deterrence must be rejected as well. However, incapacitation and rehabilitation do not presuppose the utilitarian moral theory. They can rather be accommodated within a deontological moral theory, so long as it incorporates the Doctrine of Double Effect. Thus it turns out that at least these two methods, contrary to the Abolitionists, can be morally justified. Still, it seems clear that the most fundamental rationalization for punishment is retributive.

Keywords

Death Penalty Crime Prevention Moral Theory Great Good Innocent Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bedau, Hugo. 1997. The death penalty in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, Jeremy. 1802. Panopticon versus New South Wales. In Incapacitation, ed. Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boonin, David. 2008. The problem of punishment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlsmith, Kevin. 2008. On justifiying punishment: The discrepancy between words and action. Social Justice Research 21(2): 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darley, John, Kevin Carlsmith, and Paul Robinson. 2000. Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior 24(6): 659–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doob, Anthony, and Cheryl Webster. 2003. Sentence severity and crime: Accepting the null hypothesis. Crime and Justice 30: 143–195.Google Scholar
  7. Fletcher, George. 1999. The place of victims in the theory of retribution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 3: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golash, Deirdre. 2005. The case against punishment. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kahan, Dan. 1999. The secret ambition of deterrence. Harvard Law Review 113: 413–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaufman, Whitley. 2008. Torture and the ‘Distributive Justice’ theory of self-defense: An assessment. Ethics and International Affairs 22(1): 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaufman, Whitley. 2009. Justified killing: The paradox of self-defense. Maryland: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Keller, Livia. 2010. A closer look at an Eye for an Eye: Layperson’s punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research 23(2–3): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morris, Norval, and David Rothman. 1998. Introduction, The contemporary prison. In The Oxford history of the prison, ed. Norval Morris and David Rothman, vii–xiv. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pierce, Gareth. 2009. The framing of al-megrahi. London Review of Books 31(18): 3–8.Google Scholar
  15. Pinker, Steven. 2011. The better angels of our nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  16. Posner, Richard. 1981. The economics of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Roberts, Sam. 2010. Review of final verdict. New York Times, October 10.Google Scholar
  18. Robinson, Paul, and Michael Cahill. 2006. Law without justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Singer, Peter. 2009. An intellectual autobiography. In Peter singer under fire, ed. Jeffrey A. Schaler, 1–74. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  20. Smart, J.J.C., and B. Williams. 1963. Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Solomon, Robert. 1990. A passion for justice. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Ten, C.L. 1987. Crime, guilt, and punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, Keith. 1971. Religion and the decline of magic. New York: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
  24. Vidmar, Neil. 2000. Retribution and revenge. In Handbook of justice research in Law, ed. Joseph Sanders and Lee Hamilton, 31–63. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Zimring, Franklin, and Gordon Hawkins. 1995. Incapacitation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Whitley R. P. Kaufman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA

Personalised recommendations