F.J.C. Van Ginneken, The Pain And Purpose Of Punishment: A Subjective
accessed 18 December 2017.
accessed 18 December 2017.
Justice | Restorative Justice Council’ (Restorativejustice.org.uk)
Strang and others, ‘Campbell Library’ (Campbellcollaboration.org, 2013)
accessed 16 December 2017.
Overall its clear that the purpose
of punishment has a deterrence aspect. Although deterrent theory can be
effective in some light it shouldn’t be considered as a primary purpose. This
is due to the fact that it an be quite ineffective as previously shown with the
ONS statistics. It also fails to consider crime done out of impulse and illness
which in modern times of crime seems to be an increasing matter. Other aims
such as reparation or punishment of offender need to be considered for a
sentence to be fully effective. Reparation through restorative justice is
effective as offenders can see the impact of their action. Similarly
retribution is effective as the offender is being punished for his wrong doing.
It could be said that the purpose of punishment would be best when 2 aims are
integrated. Punishment of offender and deterrence would work well as it is punishing
the offender for the crime committed but similarly is deterring offenders from committing
One aim of sentencing is reparation
which an be achieved through restorative justice. Restorative justice aims to
put right the wrong caused or to restore the situation in some way. The process entails controlled communication
between both the offender and the victim and can be in the form of a letter, a
video call or a face to face meeting3.
This enables the victim to explain the impact of the crime and allows them to
feel less victimised. This also give the offender the chance to develop a sense
of blameworthiness. Overall restorative justice has prove to be effective at
lowering reoffending rates as demonstrated by the Campbells systematic review4.
There they looked at 10 case studies which were focused on face to face meeting
and victim satisfaction whilst in the Restorative justice programme. They found
that those 10 in the studies committed less crime in the future than others who
just had the prison experience. They also found that victims were more
satisfied when using restorative justice as they were more likely to receive a
sincere apology for the crime. Using
Reparation mainly restorative justice as an aim of sentencing would be better
than a deterrent at it prevent future offending like a deterrent but also go
further in that it considers the impact on the victim.
Reparation through restorative
One purpose of sentencing is
punishment of offender. The punishment of an offender aims to penalize the
individual for the crime they committed. The punishment they receive must be in
proportion to the offence committed to demonstrated that the consequence of the
crime outweighs the benefit of the crime. It’s clear that punishment of
offender has retributive aims1 as
its has the similar purpose of punishing an individual for a wrong doing. However,
the overall purpose of punishment of offender is unclear as it very subjective
and its not just limited to punishment. They use things such as fines,
community work and compensation2 to
punish individuals but these have reparative values. The use of community work
for crimes such as vandalism means they are repaying society for they damage
they caused as well as being punished for the damage caused. The punishment of offender
aim on a whole is useful in that it is punishing offenders and is including
reparative value but it is only focusing on punishing offender and not on
preventing future crime. In terms of whether it should be the primary purpose
of sentencing it would be a good aim if deterrence was included alongside it to
prevent future offending and reoffending.
Punishment of offender
Consideration of other aims