Criminology 101: An Analysis of Punishment Theories and Social Purpose

This criminology essay critically examines punishment theories, categorizing them as utilitarian and non-utilitarian, and exploring their objectives. It delves into the concept of retribution, capital punishment, and life imprisonment, analyzing their rationales and social purposes. The essay discusses the racialization of life without parole (LWOP), highlighting inequalities within the criminal justice system and disparities in sentencing. It also considers the arguments for and against capital punishment, including the role of deterrence and the potential for wrongful executions. Furthermore, the essay references the impact of the Fair Sentencing Act and the US Sentencing Commission's modifications on drug crimes. The paper explores how racial disparities in sentencing can be caused by the disparate conduct towards Blacks at all phases of the criminal justice system. Overall, the essay provides a comprehensive analysis of punishment, its theoretical underpinnings, and its social consequences, particularly in relation to racial disparities.

Running head: CRIMINOLOGY
CRIMINOLOGY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1CRIMINOLOGY
Introduction
The topic of punishment of offenders has been a well discussed topic for people since
time immemorial. The concept of retribution is related to the act that tends to be hostile for an
offense contrary to legitimate rules and is controlled by the society as well as imposed by a
legal authority (Dow 2005). Moreover, punishment is used as a predictable device for the
countenance of attitudes of antipathy and anger as well as of verdicts of discontentment and
reprobation. These attitudes are shown either on the part of the punishing power itself or in
the name of the people the punishment is imposed. Although, there are various reasons to
rationalize punishment but criminal law in the form of sanctions have one vital purpose that
is to remove the support and private authorizations. Society comprehends the need of
sanction (Greenberg and West 2008). China continues to be the world’s foremost
executioner. The authorities of Vietnam also indicates that in November 2018 around 85
executions have been executed thus positioning the country to be amongst the top
five executioners of the world. Thus, exclusive of China, around 78% of all informed
implementations took place in only four nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam as well as
Iraq. In the view of Greenberg and West (2008), society must execute punishment in
mutually, authoritatively, legitimately manner and in public. The following paper will
critically examine the issues of punishment by putting emphasis on relevant theoretical
aspects.
Discussion
Penological rationales for punishing
Different theorists have presented numerous theories of punishment but those can
only be broadly categorized as non-utilitarian and utilitarian. The factor which differentiates
these theoretical understandings is their emphasis and objectives (Dow 2005). While,
utilitarian theories show high progressiveness towards the future importance of punishment;

2CRIMINOLOGY
on the other hand, non-utilitarian theories are reluctant and more inclined towards the past
actions as well as mental states, while mixed theories are forward as well as backward
looking. The American Civil Liberties Union considers that death punishment
characteristically disrupts the legitimate prohibition against forbidding and unusual sentence
and the assurances of equivalent security under the law (Radelet and Akers 1996). On the
other hand, similar to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes the practice of capital sentence as they
believe that the death penalty is permanent and will withdraw a person from his or her chance
to advantage from novel information or commandments that might permit be hitch to the
conviction of death punishment (Kaufman-Osborn 2006). Conversely, contrasting to the
uncertain reference of National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) to
‘fundamental’ human rights, it is noted that the ACLU’s disagreement is outlined as per the
specific constitutional rights. Its application to these privileges is seen to be gathered from the
Enlightenment historical narrative of Foucault (Hood and Hoyle 2015). Capital punishment
thus is seen as an illogical survival which was earlier considered as artefact of the most
primitive eras of penology, when captivity, labelling and further corporal sentences were
usual. Similar to those vicious practices, executions must be removed from the civilized
society.
Meanwhile, vital part of the rationale of capital sentence instigates from the
acceptance that the death punishment is valid as per a concept of 'just deserts." This
explanation puts forward the claim that criminals should be executed in support of retributive
reasons. These justification further states that criminals must suffer and that the retributive
impacts of life sentence is inadequate for taking a life. Even though, these views are well-
intentioned of debate, there is found no empirical study whether the argument is "correct" or
"incorrect." According to Mocan and Gittings (2003), in the retributivist theory of sentence,

3CRIMINOLOGY
the penalty is understood as a practice of ‘payback’ for the wrongdoings which an individual
has made. Retributive impartiality chiefly strives for penalizing an individual for any form of
unlawful act through a method which is compensatory for the delinquency. Under the
retributivist theory the criminals be worthy of penalty on account of their offense. On the
other hand, particular view of retributivist theory suggested by Hegel during the early
nineteenth century viewed the notion of sentence to withdraw, refute or invalidate the
criminal’s offence.
According to such a view, the criminal discards the authorities and rights of the
victim by performing a crime. In the view of Posner (2006), if the criminal act is kept with
exemption, it is viewed as a blameless action. However, by penalizing the offender, the status
quo of the wrongdoing is kept reinstated. This particular perspective is further taken forward
by Hampton. As per his opinion, by the actual act of criminality, the criminal show no respect
to value and importance of the victim as a human being. At this juncture, retributive
punishment justifies that the worth of victim repudiated by the criminal’s act with the
construction of the happening rejects the act’s meaning of dominance over the victim
(Appleton and Grøver 2007). It further does so in a way that shows them as equal. With such
a perspective, punishment tends to withdraw the message reflected through criminal act, that
they do not have any equivalence in value.
Social purpose of punishment
While justifying social purposes of punishment, Garland in his social theory linked
the past of penal-welfarism to progresses in the capitalist administrative economy of the
United States (Garland, Carlen and Hörnquist 2012). More specifically, in the initial years of
the 20th century, it was claimed that the complications of poverty and uncertainty as well as
the political difficulties that they caused associated with open class battle, labour discontent
in addition to uncertainties of an unfit population and deteriorating national effectiveness. It

4CRIMINOLOGY
also resulted in the origin into repression and communism which encouraged the New Deal as
well as the post-war expansion of numerous welfare state programs. Early empirical study
through the findings of Isaac Ehrlich institutes a considerable incremental deterrent outcome
of capital punishment. Posner (2006) mention that findings of Isaac Ehrlich relate to the
knowledge of the status quo whereby it is extremely occasional for a criminal who can select
to his penalty of being executed to be confined for life. While considering the risk of
performing execution for an innocent person, this is extremely unimportant, particularly
when a discrepancy is created between lawful as well as accurate innocence.
On the other hand, The Gallup and Ellsworth/Ross surveys illustrates that the
supposition of deterrence is one of the most vital grounds for death punishment support in
America (Radelet and Akers 1996). Meanwhile, Appleton and Grøver (2007) claims that
proportionality fears are gradually influencing the development of life punishments in the
United Kingdom. As per their study, the system in England as well as Wales attempts to
regulate the execution of life sentence custody as per the gravity of the crime.
Moreover, in its present understanding, it functions as a dual stage practice wherein
the court that executes a life punishment penalty must establish a least term that is currently
known as the tariff period for the resolutions of reprisal as well as limitation (van Den Haag
1980). Such an aspect of the verdict is planned to reveal the comparative severity of the
actual wrongdoing. Nonetheless, with the serving of the particular period, the release of the
criminal ought to be deliberated by a judicial organization. This judicial body must attain the
requests of due procedure same as the ones related to complete trial. However, it takes into
account simply the threat of criminal possibly will be present openly in the society.
Furthermore, the act of deterrence is perceived to be a chief strength of Life without parole
(LWOP). In the view of Appleton and Grøver (2007), abolitionists suggest that even though
reviewable life punishments present very minimal justice in the approach of preventing the

5CRIMINOLOGY
ones who might have violated law, LWOP is definitely severe. Moreover, the effect of its
deterrence must not be undervalued. While some arguments in favour of life imprisonment
claim that LWP above the age of 25years are acceptable as an alternate to death punishment.
Furthermore, it is regarded to be suitable for opponents and additional people serving longer
sentences content retribution as well as incapacitation. Lastly, there is an absence of
possibility of rehabilitation and authorizes for errors to be partly corrected (Hood and Hoyle
2015).
According to the rational choice theory, wide-ranging deterrence policies shed light
on the prevention of individuals from involving in criminal acts or nonstandard behaviour by
impacting on the rational decision-making procedure (Wright Jr 1990). In contrast, it is
claimed that any limiting consequence of LWOP have a tendency to to terminated by other
supporters of the punishment based on a fact. The fact claims of having minimal evidence
regarding penalty imposition on convicted offenders to have any effect on the conduct of
probable criminals. Meanwhile, In addition, LWOP is lawfully prohibited in few parts of the
world (Greenberg and West 2008). For instance, in Mexico, life custody implies to any long
or uncertain verdict which can range for two decades and continue till the maximum of 40
years (Villaume 2005).
Racialization of LWOP
Current social psychological investigation has chiefly focused on different
undesirable outcomes taking place for the individual in the setting of the criminal justice as a
function of race. In such a context, Black targets are artlessly regarded as showing more
criminality, are more likely to be given severe punishment. According to Reeves (2019), the
racial inequalities rise with the cruelty of the verdict forced. The level of dissimilar depiction
of Blacks amongst convicts who are serving life punishments deprived of the possibility of
parole (LWOP) is greater as compared to the ones among parole-eligible convicts serving life

6CRIMINOLOGY
sentences (Ocen 2015). The inequality shows greater severity for juvenile criminals
sentenced to LWOP, as well as higher still amongst prisoners penalized to LWOP for
nonviolent crimes. As per studies, African Americans comprise up to two-thirds or even more
of the LWOP populace in nine states namely New Jersey (66.2%), Alabama (68.8%),
Mississippi (70.4%), Illinois (66.9%), Georgia (75.1%), Louisiana (73.5%), Maryland (66%),
Michigan (68.4%) and South Carolina (68.5%). Moreover, for 3,278 people, it was
nonaggressive wrongdoings like theft a $159 jacket or helping as a trader in the transaction of
$10 of marijuana (Seeds 2018).
According to Desai and Garrett (2018), these racial inequalities tend to be caused due
to the disparate conduct towards Blacks at all phase of the criminal justice system which
includes sojourns as well as explorations, custodies, trials and petition consultations and
sentencing. Racial characteristics at all the junctures and traits of the criminal procedure
matter These involve the quality of exemplification, the custody phase in addition to the
availability of plea agreements whereby each of which affect whether juvenile as well as
adult offenders encounter a possible LWOP verdict. Study reveals stark racial inequalities in
the obligation of LWOP sentences for juvenile criminals in the U.S, whereas Black youths
are serving these punishments at a rate that is accounted to be 10 times more as compared to
white youths (Schoenfeld 2018). Nevertheless, in the last five years, US Sentencing
Commission has prepared two major modifications to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that
aimed for reduction not complete elimination eliminate of the baseless punishing difference
between drug crimes in the guiding principle. Furthermore, in 2007, the Sentencing
Commission revised the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing the penalizing varieties for
majority of the drug crimes and smeared the new guidelines in retrospective manner.
Furthermore, Congress in 2010 approved the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) by distinguishing
injustice of the sentencing disparity. This lessened the inequality in the rates of drug crimes

7CRIMINOLOGY
required to generate certain obligatory least possible punishments from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1
(Ocen 2015). Regrettably, efforts of the Congress as well as the Sentencing Commission
regarding the earlier drug crimes punishments which led thousands of offenders to receive
sentence were prejudiced. It is claimed that during that period more than 16,700 prisoners
undergo sentences as per the 100-to-1 regime (Seeds 2018). Under this penalization, majority
of belong to Black racial background and powerless to use these sentencing modifications. In
addition to this, approximately 8,800 are still undergoing extreme punishments for drug
crimes as the FSA is not retrospective and around 7,900 are firmly disallowed for lessening
of their punishments thus resulting in undergoing LWOP.
Hope and human rights for equal justice
Decades of harsh and extreme sentencing have given the world with highest
incarceration rate. Despite the fact that the retributive rationale for worldwide hearings is
occasionally voiced in terms of offering fairness to the victims, the understanding of
retributivism tends to ultimately concerns international tribunals (Reeves 2019). Moreover,
retributive justice is engrossed on the punishment of a criminal whereby he is given his due.
Conversely, a punitive procedure that fails to openly distinguish the criminal predicament of
victims must be considered as a failure from the viewpoint of the anti-impunity standard.
Moreover, in lieu of retributivist, an unpublicized impartial hearing delivering balanced
penalty must be as acceptable as an exceptionally civic hearing (Deathpenaltyinfo.org 2020).
Such understanding does not appear to be right. Thus, it is imperative that liability for crime
must be a civic action primarily stating gratitude of victims. Moreover, retaining committers
for explanation reflects their acknowledgment, instead of acknowledgment of the crimes done
to the sufferers. However, there are states which enacted laws that necessitated people to
attend no less than 85% of their prison condemnations and numerous abolished paroles in
total. In addition, by end of 1990s, almost 29 states unrestricted the uncategorized penalizing

8CRIMINOLOGY
guidelines. These guidelines worked as parole board discretion with an aim of releasing
people who have served earlier and other hand almost 44% of their sentences aimed in
adopting “truth-in-sentencing” systems.
Nonetheless, in recent times, organizations like the Equal Justice Initiative is
committed to bring conclusion to the mass imprisonment as well as extreme retribution in the
United States along with the perplexing racial and financial unfairness (EJI.org 2020). It
further aims to protect rudimentary human rights for the most susceptible populaces in
American society. Such an initiative will pave way for pioneering reports along with
narratives which reveal history of racial injustice in the US. EJI offers investigation and
sanctions to help advocates as well as policymakers in the judgmentally significant work of
criminal justice reform.
Conclusion
To conclude, hope is a practical temperament which involves not simply shift to a
specific valence to a condition or consequence, but then again a constructing of useful
reasoning of an individual as well as imaginative commitment to the world. There are various
reasons to rationalize punishment but criminal law in the form of sanctions has one vital
purpose that is to remove the support and private authorizations. Society comprehends the
need of sanction. Thus, liability for crime must be a civic action primarily stating gratitude of
victims. Moreover, retaining committers for explanation reflects their acknowledgment,
instead of acknowledgment of the crimes done to the sufferers. There must be a commitment
to bring conclusion to the mass imprisonment as well as extreme retribution. Furthermore,
there is a need to challenge racial as well as economic injustice as well as safeguard basic
human rights for the most susceptible people in the society.

9CRIMINOLOGY
References
Appleton, C. and Grøver, B., 2007. The pros and cons of life without parole. The British
Journal of Criminology, 47(4), pp.597-615.
Deathpenaltyinfo.org, 2020. Homepage. [online] Death Penalty Information Center.
Available at: <http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/> [Accessed 8 April 2020].
Desai, A. and Garrett, B.L., 2018. The State of the Death Penalty. Notre Dame L. Rev., 94,
p.1255.
Dow, D.R., 2005. Executed on a technicality: Lethal injustice on America's death row.
Beacon Press.
Eji.org, 2020. About The Equal Justice Initiative. [online] Equal Justice Initiative. Available
at: <https://eji.org/about/> [Accessed 8 April 2020].
Garland, D., Carlen, R.G. and Hörnquist, M., 2012. A Symposium Of Reviews Of Peculiar
Institution: America’s Death Penalty In An Age Of Abolition. Brit. J. Criminol, 52, pp.202-
216.
Greenberg, D.F. and West, V., 2008. Siting the death penalty internationally. Law & Social
Inquiry, 33(2), pp.295-343.
Greenberg, D.F. and West, V., 2008. Siting the death penalty internationally. Law & Social
Inquiry, 33(2), pp.295-343.
Hood, R. and Hoyle, C., 2015. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford.
Kaufman-Osborn, T.V., 2006. A critique of contemporary death penalty
abolitionism. Punishment & Society, 8(3), pp.365-383.
Mocan, H.N. and Gittings, R.K., 2003. Getting off death row: Commuted sentences and the
deterrent effect of capital punishment. The Journal of Law and Economics, 46(2), pp.453-
478.

10CRIMINOLOGY
Ocen, P.A., 2015. (E) racing childhood: examining the racialized construction of childhood
and innocence in the treatment of sexually exploited minors. UCLA L. Rev., 62, p.1586.
Posner, R.A., 2006. The economics of capital punishment. The Economists' Voice, 3(3).
Radelet, M.L. and Akers, R.L., 1996. Deterrence and the death penalty: The views of the
experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), pp.1-16.
Reeves, T., 2019. Impunity and Hope. Ratio Juris, 32(4), pp.415-438.
Schoenfeld, H., 2018. Building the prison state: Race and the politics of mass incarceration.
University of Chicago Press.
Seeds, C., 2018. Disaggregating LWOP: Life without parole, capital punishment, and mass
incarceration in Florida, 1972–1995. Law & Society Review, 52(1), pp.172-205.
van Den Haag, E., 1980. Punishment as a device for controlling the crime rate. Rutgers L.
Rev., 33, p.706.
Villaume, A.C., 2005. “Life without parole” and “virtual life sentences”: Death sentences by
any other name. Contemporary Justice Review, 8(3), pp.265-277.
Wright Jr, J.H., 1990. Life-without-parole: An alternative to death or not much of a life at
all. Vand. L. Rev., 43, p.529.