The idea of reductivism is, ‘the idea that punishment can be justified by its ability to prevent crime from happening again in the future.’ Therefore the justification theories of punishment instructs the understanding that this theory rationales and justifies the nature of punishment based on the efficiency, or the fairness of the punishment which conforms to the beliefs. This is why there is an increase in prison numbers as the judges would provide an appropriate sentence for the individual. Policy A and B emphasises how depending on the action, the consequence would be met accordingly.
Deterrence is one form of reductivist punishment, it deters people from committing crime through a punishment or sentence which they have received – to prevent them from reoffending/recommitting. They would have found it to be extremely unpleasant (individual deterrence) or through seeing the effects of punishment on other people (general deterrence).
Theorists regarding deterrence argue that the pain of punishment is justified if the punishment received prevents any future pain. Jeremy Bentham argued that the minimum amount of punishment that is necessary to produce deterrence should be used. He also argued that punishment should aim to achieve the greatest happiness for society and its nature should be measured by the ‘felicific calculus’, whereby the ‘pleasure of gaining is not equal to the evil of losing’ . Bentham’s work enabled him to focus on surveillance, whereby the offenders not knowing they were being watched which was known as ‘invisible omniscience’, this was to focus on their behaviour.
Rehabilitation is where the offender can be ‘cured’ of wanting to reoffend – this is enforced by forced treatment which is given as part of the punishment imposed through sentencing. However, it can be seen that ‘’treatment programmes…did ‘not work’. An example of a programme is the ‘SOTP’. Which highlights how rehabilitation could channel offender’s energy into rebellion instead of self-improvement. Irrespective of their rebellion, Lord Woolf argued in his 1991 report that ‘’…prisoners should be treated fairly…’’
Incapacitation focuses on the individuals who post a great risk of reoffending in the future and resulting in the protecting the public. An example would be sending them to prison or disqualifying them from driving.
Von Hirsch’s research indicated that there was no strong evidence that harsher punishments produced greater deterrence – this is because the three main reductivist justifications for punishment have struggled to guarantee that an offender will not reoffend. This is where recidivism plays a major part as this supports Hirsch’s research, in England and Wales, there are around ‘60-65 per cent of prisoners who are reconvicted within the first two years’ Figures released by the Ministry of Justice in 2010 highlighted ‘’14 prisons reconviction rates exceeded 70 per cent’’ . In 2011, Ministry of Justice stated that in England and Wales there was a total of ‘’510,000 offences that were committed in one year by 180,000 offenders…been convicted in 2009’’. Recidivism occurs due to the long-period of exclusion from the outside world but also because the prisoners would be well aware it would be difficult to attain a decent job or due to the inadequate lack of emotional support. The introduction of the RRP (1992) (CBT) aimed to prevent reoffending by focusing on the individual’s self-control.
This approach faces other ethical problems as; allowing the punishment of innocent people, if the goals of deterrence or incapacitation dictate it. Bentham’s book stated how utilitarianism ‘tells us that if torturing an innocent child to death would bring a better consequence…torturing an innocent child to death would be the right thing to do’’ , therefore, in the case of incapacitation – they would allow people to be punished on the grounds of crimes which they have not already committed. This is supported by Rawls who claimed, ‘’the most natural way…principle of rational choice for one man’’, this meant that one had to endure pain now in order to prevent a greater pain.
Retributivism ‘’justifies punishment through sentencing is deserved by the offender’’ , in comparison to reductivism, it focuses on the offence committed to justify the punishment. Punishment is based on the grounds that people voluntary decide to commit an offence. They are morally liable for their actions and should be blamed and this should result in an appropriate punishment. This implies that the offender accepts societal ideologies regarding what is morally acceptable whilst undergoing punishment. Retributivists also say that offenders should only be blamed and punished in proportionate to the crime committed – which is known as ‘just deserts’ sentencing in comparison to reductivism. This includes serious punishment for crime committed (ordinal proportionality) and setting of the level of punishment (cardinal proportionality).
Retributivism suffers from criticism – which highlights how the principles do not inform how sentences should be measured, implicating that it is morally acceptable for the community and the state to punish offenders – this highlights how the retributive sentencing does not have the moral content that it claims to implicate and lastly, critical penologists have claimed in an unequal capitalist society, the state lacks the moral principle of punishing the offender and that retributive punishment is ignorant towards inequality and social deprivation by emphasising they punish people equally.
Durkheim envisioned punishment as being the core creation and maintenance of solidarity in society. He emphasised that punishment was a means of maintaining order, solidarity and obedience to law in society – he recognised punishment’s emotional and expressive functions, this therefore favoured his work within cultural penology. Durkheim’s view on the nature of crime and punishment changed as society developed from ‘pre-industrial’ where crimes were being against God and reflected the society’s outraged response to crime this was by being severe and corporal in nature to reinforce the collective consciousness to the development of societies and ‘industrialised’ ideologies. Religious power declined and as a result it led to sympathy for offenders and punishment was needed to reinforce the collective consciousness to maintain social order.
Marxist penology is mostly focused on the economical structure and the processes of production within society, the social inequality in a capitalist society and finally, the oppression of working-class people by middle and upper-class. They explain that punishment is a method of maintaining the social order and interests of the powerful. They express that shortage of labour work would influence the prisoners to get back into work which would provide a minimal change of reoffending since there would be a lenient punishment and in a way, a given incentive rather than providing a harsher punishment which would mould them into reoffending.
Rusche reasoned that society’s ruling class found ways to punish and this favoured the economic interests, so that penal practice is deterministically driven by societies economic needs at a given time. Since capitalism relies on the labour of the working-class, prison was more effective than corporal or capital punishment. Rusche writes in his programmatic article of 1933, ‘’deprivation of freedom for a definite period indicated in advance in the sentence of the court…’ ’– ideally it would encourage the offender not to reoffend by punishing him/her but it is evident that it would influence them to reoffend. This can be supported by Cooke who stated ‘’prison environment is not compatible…rehabilitation…cause psychological damage…leave prison in a worse mental state’’
E.P. Thompson emphasised that the powerful in society use their power to define and shape criminal law. Enforcing punishment to control the working-class by criminalising activities that threatened their power and placed importance on how the powerless had the ability to control their behaviour.
Criticism follows as they focused on their fundamental beliefs and on their assumption of a casual relationship between the economic conditions and forms of punishment. Biological positivists believe that biology can be used to explain crime when it is considered with social environmental reasons – as positivists focus on practical research, it portrays that the research is more reliable rather than the Marxist assumptions. Psychological influences focus on building a profile to match the offender and the reason behind their crimes rather than focusing entirely on the social factors that Marxist’s focus on.
Foucault was influenced by Marxism but disagreed with the orthodox ideology, he argued that punishment changed from corporal to carceral because it economically profited the powerful to discipline offenders and to retain them as ‘good’ citizens – rather than killing or injuring them. Foucault argued that prisons failed to reform offenders but was used to retain their power over society. He claimed that punishment through social institutions enabled the power to increase by gathering knowledge about offenders. This ideology was based on historical evidence so the reliability would depend on the accuracy of the historical evidence but ignoring the variable effects of punishment on individuals.
When justifying other alternatives for punishment, the CJA 1991 emphasised the proportionality between crime and sentence and the removal of past convictions, which was influenced by retributivism – this would enable the offender to acknowledge that they have the chance to restart. However, the Act contained provision for reductivist disproportionate, deterrent and incapacitative sentences for violent offenders.
Reductivism has become more prominent in sentencing policy with the introduction of deterrent punishments, an example is the antisocial behaviour orders in the CDA 1998 and incapacitative sentences for violent offenders in the CJA 2003 – this Act contains a requirement for proportionality in sentencing emphasising that retributivism and reductivism both play a competing role in the current policy.
2019-5-2-1556755430 – B