Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals

Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals

Criminal Law: Theories of Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals

Introduction to Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals

The various justifications for criminal punishment are not mutually exclusive. A particular punishment may advance several goals at the same time. A term of imprisonment, for example, may serve to incapacitate the offender, deter others in society from committing similar acts, and, at the same time, provide an opportunity for rehabilitative treatment for the offender. On the other hand, the goals of punishment may at times conflict. The retributive and deterrence theories call for the infliction of unpleasant experiences upon the criminal, including harsh prison treatment; but the prison environment may not be conducive to, or may even defeat, rehabilitation.

No one theory of punishment addresses all the goals of criminal law. A combination of theories and goals plays a part in the thinking of the legislators who establish the ranges of punishment for various crimes, the judges and jurors who sentence offenders within these ranges, and the parole authorities who have the power to release certain prisoners.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

Guide to Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals

In this Section

In this Section, contents include, among others: Criminal Law, Criminal Law Purpose, Criminal Punishment Theories, Criminal Punishment Retribution, Criminal Deterrence, Criminal Restraint, Rehabilitation, Restoration, Criminal Punishment Conflicts Among Goals and Classification of Crimes.


Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *