As stipulated by the judicial systems across the world, there exist six objectives of sentencing – retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, denunciation, rehabilitation and restitution. Given below are the details of each of these sentencing objectives which will help you get a better understanding of the philosophical principle behind each of them.

Retribution: ‘Let the punishment fit the crime’ – this is the principle behind retribution, wherein it is believed that punishment is morally acceptable response for crime when given in proportion to the severity of the crime committed. In order to make sure that the punishment is proportional, it has to be scaled with the severity of the offending behavior of the person who is being sentenced. That being said, it is very difficult to come to a consensus on whether the punishment is actually proportionate to the crime. While the classical school of thought was of the opinion that the amount of punishment should be proportionate to the amount of harm caused as a result of the criminal act, more recent advocates of retribution argue that the amount of punishment should be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the convict and not the amount of harm caused.

Deterrence: This objective of sentencing basically uses punishment as a threat for people who resort to unlawful activities. Deterrence is further categorized into specific deterrence – wherein the convict is targeted and general deterrence – wherein the case of the convict sets an example for the society. There also exists another type – incapacitation, wherein the convict is deterred from committing crime by taking away his ability to commit it instead of giving him a chance to rehabilitate. There seems to be a lot of confusion about incapacitation with some people considering it to be the third category of deterrence, some considering it a subset of specific deterrence, and some arguing that it is a separate objective of sentencing which is indirectly associated with deterrence. It has been subjected to severe criticism in recent times, with critics arguing that it is ineffective and suggesting that the criminal would seldom pause and give his action a thought in the heat of the moment.

Incapacitation: Undoubtedly the most controversial sentencing objective, incapacitation revolves around the fact that the said criminal act has to be prevented and the only way to do is it to incapacitate the convict by removing him from the society. People who support this practice are of the opinion that if the said person is set free it will be a threat for the society, and that makes it important for the judicial system to take away his ability to commit the said crime by incapacitating him. It can be either done by sentencing the person to continuous life terms or sending him to the gallows. Even though deterrence is not the objective of sentencing here, incapacitation does act as a deterrent for the society (and that explains all the confusion about the two objectives.) Incapacitation also involves some of the most controversial forms of punishment including cutting off the hands of a person convicted for theft and death penalty for murder or genocide. Simply put, the objective of sentencing here is to protect the public by ensuring that the convict is not capable of re-offending.

Denunciation: In the field of law, denunciation refers to the disapproval of an act by the society which is expressed by imposition of a sentence. It serves as a message for the convict as well as other individuals that such acts will not be tolerated in the society. The arguments of denunciation more often reflect the values of a society, instead of reflecting the principles of a criminal justice system. READ MORE