The Retribution Theory of Corrections

Question 1 

The retribution Theory of Corrections argues that the best intervention for a crime is to offer a punishment that is proportional to the offense, as the offender deserves it (White, 2011). One of the major challenges of this theory is that it does not aim at the prevention of such crime from happening in the future through the rehabilitation of the offender. The goals of the correctional policy include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation as well as restoration. The retribution theory of corrections undermines the deterrence part of the correctional policy and thus has a negative effect on it as far as this element goes (White, 2011). The modern society may not positively respond to retribution as it advocates for revenge which does not offer improvements on the behavior of the offenders and by extension, the larger society. 

Question 2 

The ideas of retribution include capital punishment, involving death sentence that is sanctioned by the government as punishment for crime, eye for an eye where the offender is penalized to the same extent as the offended, penal harm whereby the offender is subjected through a harsher form of punishment at the time when they are serving a sentence, proportionality whereby the degree of punishment offered is relative to the seriousness of the offending behavior, restoration whereby there is a mediation between the victim and the offender with the aim of reaching a resolution that is satisfactory to both parties and finally, the idea that two wrongs make a right, advocating for the countering of a wrong with a similar wrong (Sabbagh & Schmitt, 2016). A correctional policy that uses a purely retributive theory would mainly rely on mandatory sentencing, ignoring the financial status of the offender thus providing similar financial penalties on the rich and the poor, while advocating for social harm instead of character transformation and culpability of the offender (Markel & Gray, 2011). 

Question 3 

One problem for retribution is that it is an outdated theory that advocates for revenge and as such, may not address the needs of the evolving society that is more civilized (Lippke, 2003). Lippke (2003) adds that retribution only punishes the crime without paying attention to the issues that led to its occurrence, providing the potential for the offender to repeat it. Thirdly, retribution does not provide a satisfactory way of punishing crimes since it does not put into consideration the roles played by the offenders and their motivations behind committing the crime. As such, it only punishes a crime just for the sake of it. Lastly, giving a similar punishment to the offender is not fair because, while the victim only suffered the injury, the offender also suffers the agony of having to wait in anticipation for the injury. All these problems are inherent to the theory of retribution in practice and may thus fail to live up to the major goals of the correctional policy system, which it is intended to serve. 

Question 4 

The Stanford Prison Experiment was a social psychology experiment conducted in 1971 in Stanford University seeking to determine the psychological effects of perceived power with a specific focus on the struggle between the prison warders and prisoners. The study involved college students who volunteered as "prisoners" and "guards" led by Philip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology, acting as the superintendent (Kelly, 2018). According to Kelly (2018), the “guards” exercised authority over the “prisoners” subjecting them to psychological torture. The experiment was planned to last for two weeks but was discontinued only after six days. The conclusion for this experiment was that the behaviors portrayed by the participants were in response to the simulated-prison situation and not their actual personalities. The prisoners accepted their roles as less important human beings under the guards’ authority in the face of multiple maltreatment. The study has a positive impact on rehabilitation as it led to changes in the management of prisons in America. For instance, before trial, juvenile offenders were separated from adult offenders to protect them from violence. 

References 

Kelly, E. (2018).  The limits of blame: Rethinking punishment and responsibility (6 th ed). Harvard University Press. 

Lippke, R.L., (2003). Retribution and Incarceration. Public Affairs Quarterly, 17 (1), 29-48. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40441341?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 

Markel, D., Flanders, C., & Gray, D. (2011). Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right. California Law Review, 99 (2), 605-628. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23018611?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 

Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (2016).  Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research (6 th ed). Springer. 

White, M. D. (2011).  Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy (6 th ed). Oxford University Press.