Skip to content 
Models of Criminal Sanction or Punishment
The primary aim of the criminal justice system is to protect citizens from those likely to harm them. One area of interest within the criminal justice system concerns the management of individuals convicted of criminal offenses. Notably, each of these criminal sanction models has its own philosophical underpinnings. This paper seeks to evaluate the underlying assumptions of the retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation models, with the aim of establishing a personal preference among them. The reasons for imposing criminal sanctions and punishments have significant bearing on the way a society deals with criminals.
Need help with custom assignment writing on criminal justice system? Buy coursework online today.
Retribution
The general idea behind retribution is the notion of getting even. Its underlying premise is that a criminal is an enemy of society and deserves severe punishment for willfully breaking societal rules. The severity of the punishment is determined by the seriousness of the crime (DiMarino & Roberson, 2013). Therefore, individuals who commit the same offense should receive similar punishments, proportionate to the degree of harm their actions have caused others.
Another underlying assumption of retribution is that the state plays a role in administering criminal sanctions to allow community members to express their revulsion toward offensive acts and to prevent citizens from taking the law into their own hands. In this view, retribution represents society’s collective disapproval of crime (Gaylord & Wong, 2014).
However, this model is often not preferred because it fails to consider the impact of punishment on the future behavior of offenders and others (DiMarino & Roberson, 2013). It limits focus to the offense already committed, rather than addressing potential future crimes or serving any broader purpose.
Deterrence
While retribution views the criminal as an enemy of society, the deterrence model assumes that offenders are aware of the sanctions and perceive them as unpleasant. Thus, when deciding whether to commit a crime, individuals are assumed to consider the potential consequences, including the restitution they may have to pay if caught and punished (Barnett, 2014). They weigh the benefits and costs of committing the crime and assess the associated risks, ultimately making a rational decision to break the law or not. Latessa et al. (2014) argued that the deterrence theory assumes a positive relationship between the seriousness of the criminal act and the level of enjoyment an individual expects to gain from it. As a result, punishment can only serve as an effective deterrent if there is a high likelihood of detection.
A major limitation of this model, which prevents it from being widely favored, is its failure to account for the impulsive nature of many street-level offenders. Latessa et al. (2014) noted that these individuals often have short-term perspectives, histories of failure in employment, education, or relationships, and may struggle with disorganization, substance abuse, distorted thinking, and associations with similarly inclined peers—all of which undermine the assumption that they are rational decision-makers.
Incapacitation
An underlying assumption of incapacitation is that a large proportion of serious crimes is committed by a relatively small group of persistent offenders. These individuals are seen as naturally predisposed to criminal behavior, distinguishing this model from retribution and deterrence, which view crime as a matter of personal choice. In the case of incapacitation, those actively engaged in crime in one year are significantly more likely than others to continue offending in subsequent years. This supports the idea that criminals form a distinct population (Bageric, 2001). On this basis, removing high-rate offenders from society is expected to prevent further crimes.
Another assumption within the incapacitation model is that restricting offenders’ ability to commit further crimes by imprisoning them can help control crime. As Bageric (2001) notes, a person must be present in a location to commit a crime there. Therefore, incarceration prevents individuals from committing offenses during the time they are imprisoned. Additionally, it is assumed that offenders understand the risk of imprisonment upon arrest, which seems reasonable given that many offenses carry custodial penalties.
While incapacitation clearly limits an offender’s ability to cause immediate harm—since those in prison lack opportunities to commit additional crimes—it is difficult to endorse this model fully. It is an expensive crime control strategy. Bageric (2001) criticizes incapacitation for potentially increasing crime rates due to the brutalizing effects of incarceration, which may heighten the likelihood of offenders committing more serious crimes upon release. It fails to account for long-term and indirect consequences, particularly its impact on overall societal well-being.
Rehabilitation
The rehabilitation model of criminal justice offers a fundamentally different approach to dealing with offenders compared to other models. According to Samaha (2013), two main assumptions underlie the rehabilitation model. Unlike the other three models, rehabilitation assumes that offenders commit crimes due to forces beyond their control. Because offenders do not freely choose to commit crimes, they are not considered fully responsible for their actions. Instead of focusing on punishment, as in the cases of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, the rehabilitation model emphasizes the potential for expert-led therapy to help offenders change, reducing their likelihood of reoffending (Samaha, 2013). After undergoing rehabilitation, individuals are believed to gain the capacity to control their actions. At this point, they can make conscious decisions about their behavior, and society may then hold them accountable if they commit further crimes.
In contrast to the deterrence model, which views criminal behavior as a rational choice, rehabilitation acknowledges that offenders possess unique characteristics and learning styles that contribute to their criminal behavior. These attributes may include gender, education level, and marital status. Consequently, the focus shifts from the crime itself to the individual offender. The underlying belief is that criminal punishment can prevent future crimes if it facilitates meaningful personal change through education, counseling, psychological treatment, and positive moral influences (Alarid, 2014). Such interventions aim to help transform individuals from offenders into law-abiding citizens.
Another fundamental assumption of rehabilitation is that behavioral change is possible, especially when offenders show a genuine desire to improve themselves. As a result, those convicted of crimes should be given the opportunity to reform and rebuild their lives. However, this process should occur under the close supervision of the state’s correctional system (Carlan et al., 2011). The goal of punishment within this model is to assist offenders in their transformation into productive, law-abiding members of society.
A key criticism of the rehabilitation model is the difficulty of demonstrating its empirical effectiveness, particularly in reforming repeat offenders. This challenge arises from the model’s lack of clearly defined and measurable goals. While prisons may provide education, vocational training, and other constructive programs, there is limited evidence linking these interventions directly to a reduction in future criminal behavior (Carlan et al., 2011). Rehabilitation, therefore, often relies on a degree of faith, with the assumption that improving an individual’s social conditions will reduce their likelihood of reoffending.
Preferred Model - Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation remains the most favorable objective of criminal sanctions, and the identified shortcomings can be addressed through improvements in the management of the criminal justice system. As Samaha (2013) observed, the factors that drive individuals to engage in criminal behavior can be identified by evaluating the offender’s history, which provides a foundation for achieving the corrective goals of criminal sanctions. Addressing these contributing factors through treatment would reduce costs while enabling reformed individuals to make positive contributions to society. The treatment-based approach of rehabilitation is considered more humane compared to the punitive measures used in other models.
Conclusion
A common element across criminal sanction models is that they each contain underlying assumptions about human nature. While rehabilitation emerges as the preferred sanction model, each model has its own set of strengths and weaknesses, which helps explain why the objectives of sanctions and punishment continue to evolve. One aspect that is universally acknowledged is that a critical component of an orderly society includes sure, swift, and efficient justice.
Need Help with Your custom paper?
If you’re looking for custom writing assistance or a professional essay writer, contact us and get the help you need today.
References
Alarid, L. (2014). Community-based corrections (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Bageric, M. (2001). Punishment & sentencing. Cavendish.
Barnett, R. E. (2014). The structure of liberty: Justice and the rule of law. Oxford University Press.
Carlan, P. E., Nored, L. S., & Downey, R. A. (2011). An introduction to criminal law. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
DiMarino, F. J., & Roberson, C. (2013). Introduction to corporate and white-collar crime. CRC Press.
Gaylord, D. M., & Wong, D. (2014). The Correctional Services Department. The Open University of Hong Kong.
Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., & Koetzle, D. (2014). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Routledge.
Samaha, J. (2013). Criminal law. Cengage Learning.
Looking for an essay writer online?