Criminal sentencing objectives: deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation

¶ … criminal justice system comprises of key features that generally include the criminal act, investigations into it and subsequently arresting the suspect, abhorrence to suspect's rights in the course of due process, the trial as well as the sentencing after a guilty verdict has been passed. The sentencing of a suspect follows the guilty verdict and at this stage of the criminal justice process, the judge determines the suitable punishment. This is the most important aspects of the criminal justice system and pivotal in the pursuit of preventing crime. The sentencing stage is based on four key objectives that include deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and retribution.

Deterrence

In general terms deterrence in the criminal justice system is expected to have two effects. The clear certainty of action against offenders, potential law breakers should be deterred by the risk of arrest and second, the punishment may affect behavior change by the potential offender weighing the severity of the punishment against the criminal act. According to Wright (2010), this forms the basis of the "three strike and truth in sentencing" policies as a threat for dire consequences against those engaging in criminal activities. However, the problem with this approach is the assumption of potential criminals as rational which might not usually be the case (Mumola, 1999). The other limitation of deterrence is the fact that most crimes do not lead to arrests therefore the effect of deterrence is drastically reduced. Wright (2010) asserts that the enhanced punishment severity is most likely to have little to no effect on potential criminals as they think they will not be apprehended for their actions. A body of research point at the behavior change in response to the legal threats other than the no effect of deterrence (Tonry, 2008). It is also assumed that potential criminals know the severity of crimes a deterrence; it is however true that for there to be an effect, potential offenders must be aware of the consequences before they commit a crime.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is meant to teach offenders or criminals a chance to learn their debilitating issues and instill change in their behavior in order to not engage in criminal activities, some argue that it is a better solution to crime deterrence (Gadek, 2013). Rehabilitation takes many forms that could include programs such as drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and violent behavior rehabilitation, among others. Rehabilitation has taken a different definition in the criminal justice system, one centered around opportunities for education as compared to the twentieth century definition that focused on individualistic treatment programs (Raynor & Robinson, 2009). However, one of the major challenges of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system is its association with discriminatory justice practices. According to McNeill (2012), rehabilitation is problematic due to the biases associated with the selection of who gets qualified for the programs. The other challenge is the level to which assessment and the interventions satisfy the rehabilitations objectives including issues such as gender sensitivity and cultural diversity (Robinson & Crow, 2009).

It is important for rehabilitation to target specific characteristics of the criminals as well as the challenges they face that can manipulated in treatment as well as those that can predict future criminal activities such as anger and drug abuse. In addition, the rehabilitation program needs to be implemented in a way that suits the participants and utilizes therapeutic methods tested by scholars.

Retribution

This a deontological view of punishment used in reference to the offences performed by criminals. To those who favor this concept, it is a punishment mitted out subjected to the judicial process rather than an intention to promote right and enhancing good. Moore (1993) suggests that retribution can be conceptualuzed as a theory that epitomizes punishment as an intrinsic good that need to be enhanced. White (2012) categorizes retribution into two major varieties and claims that each can be justified in many ways. The first is negative retribution which puts restrictions on allowed punishment, with the believe that those who have not been found guilty should not be punished and that those found guilty must never be severely punished. Moreover, positive retribution on the other hand is where there are affirmative requirements put on punishment with the believe that the innocent should never be punished and the guilty must be severely punished. Positive retribution is opposite to deterrence as a basis of punishment and it points at one who is to be punished and the mode of punishment. According to Avio (1990), such demands are challanging considering economic burden it can impose on the criminal justice system. However, retribution is effective in reducing crime because in any event the penalty distribution in retribution is different from that in detterrence, retribution emerges effective.

A criminal justice system that employs capital punishment regardless of the financial implications and issues regarding its value on deterrence is biased towards retribution.