General Deterrence: The Evolution Of Punishment

The evolution of punishment practices with time has been influenced by the underlying justification for the punishment: namely utilitarian, retributivist, or a combination of the two. The concept of general deterrence utilizes the threat of punishment to deter society from crime, and the reasoning behind punishment based on those grounds will be examined in this essay. Rehabilitation rationale will also be analyzed to highlight the respective strength of general deterrence and retribution in offenders receiving the punishment they deserve. The utilitarian and rational strengths associated with the threat of punishment makes general deterrence the most convincing utilitarian justification; however, general deterrence alone may give rise to a system in which punishment is not certain or just, necessitating the retributivist establishment of culpability and the reduction of unfair advantages. Since the Enlightenment, the practice of punishment has revolved around the twin cores of rationality and utilitarianism, and the necessity in making the perceived costs of crime not worth the potential benefits. This focus on rationality directly led to the foundation of two utilitarian justifications of punishment: general deterrence, utilizing the threat of punishment to ensure the irrationality of committing crime; and reform, affecting the rehabilitation of the offender through rational means. The justification for general deterrence assumes that “the state doing the harm creates greater harm,” and therefore embodies utilitarianism at its core: by causing suffering to a few individuals, ultimately the happiness of the many will be justified (Watson 23 Sept 2015). It is rational to suppose that the state, as the sovereign authority, should be in charge of punishment, in order to protect society. Therefore, the state using punishment to prevent further crime is both rational and utilitarian. General deterrence simultaneously provides minimal suffering and maximum happiness to society, while providing a rational justification for the state administering the punishment. Rehabilitation, as a justification for punishment, addresses the individualized importance of punishment compared to the macro-level approach of general deterrence, but is ultimately less convincing given the weak link between utilitarianism and the ability of suffering to inspire reform. Essentially, the justification for rehabilitation assumes that the immediate harm of the punishment will prevent future harm - in that the offender will suffer and thus reform within the confines of the law (Watson 23 Sept 2015). In this way rehabilitation differs from general deterrence, because it is the suffering, and subsequent rehabilitation, that makes the punishment viable, not the disincentive for others to commit crime. Rather than using punishment as way to rationally convince society to not commit crime, it is used to prevent the individual from committing crime through the process of reform. Therefore, rehabilitation addresses a common criticism of general deterrence, since the punishment is intended for the individual offender, thus eliminating the potential of the offender becoming “a means to an end” in the pursual of the social good (Lacey 1994: 31). The justification for rehabilitation is problematic because it involves the use of punishment for suffering, but does not justify the intentional infliction of suffering to prompt rehabilitation. In this way, rehabilitation contradicts the utilitarian concept from which it originates: maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. The offender is rehabilitated by increasing suffering through punishment; however, the intentional infliction of punishment solely for rehabilitative purposes fails to meet the utilitarian objective. Inflicting suffering on an individual only to “reform” them is not a feasible nor an effective reasoning for punishment, when there are alternatives, such as medical treatment, that minimize suffering. In contrast, general deterrence, by employing punishment as a means to deter others from crime, will decisively maximize the happiness of society, by making …show more content…
General deterrence theory alone does not guarantee the certainty of punishment, because it is solely focused on providing disincentives to society to commit crime. This uncertainty confers ambiguous standards for punishment and, if revealed to the public, could lead to collapse of the criminal justice system. In fact, general deterrence theory could potentially justify no punishment or punishment in only select situations, as long as the public remains oblivious (Lacey 1994: 29). However, the "unfair advantages" view of retributivist theory may balance with general deterrence and restore certainty of punishment through the infliction of punishment to re-establish moral