Chapter 1 Introduction: The Goals of Punishment and Aims of Correctional Institutions

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Goals of Punishment and Aims of Correctional Institutions

Those who have offended us, betrayed our trust, and violated the equilibrium of our daily lives: these are the very ones we seek to protect. A seeming paradox, a dim irony many will find too difficult to grasp, yet we do it. We embrace the folly, and at times, to a level of absurdity, ignore the inner voice to harm those who harmed us. Why do we do this? Why do we feel compelled to protect those who refuse to obey our laws? And most of all, why do we use such laws that were viciously violated to protect those same individuals who violated them? These questions are at the heart of this book, and these questions are used to guide our search for understanding why and how correctional practices are affected by our laws, in particular the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, we direct additional focus to an attempt to explain how these practices are being shaped by legislation, and landmark court cases.

Early correctional practices were characterized by "civil death" statutes that were common in many states as a natural part of punishing the offender. According to this practice, convicted offenders were stripped of most, if not all, of their civil rights. Once incarcerated, inmates lost all rights and many times found themselves at the mercy of those who guarded them. Such a practice was not so different for those sentenced to community supervision—probation or house arrest—as their right to life and liberty were violated as well. Once the convicts were sentenced, society seemed to want very little to do with them. "Throw away the key" and "let 'em rot" were common sentiments that dominated society's way of dealing with its offenders. These perceptions were self-serving, and many were perfectly comfortable with not dealing with those who had been effectively shunned from society. In fact, a common belief was that once convicted and incarcerated, offenders became "slaves of the state," as can be understood from the Thirteenth Amendment, which states:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Prison administrators, as agents of the government, not only deprive the inmate of liberty but also dictate the details of daily life, including the administration of discipline for those inmates who violate prison rules. Inmates became "nonpersons," and thus it was easy not to think of them. Furthermore, two underlying principles are essential to this approach: (1) under the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, the judicial branch of the government should not meddle with the operations of the executive branch, and thus in the affairs of correctional facilities; (2) judges should leave correctional administration to correctional experts (Cole, 1987). Consequently, state and federal government neglected prison inmates, enabling prison administrations to run their facilities in whatever manner they saw fit. This was all done in the name of punishment, society's reaction to those who offended it. How, then, do these practices collide with the stated goals of punishment and those of corrections?

The Goals of Punishment

The process of apprehending, prosecuting, sentencing, and sanctioning those who have committed crimes is a calculated, rational process orchestrated by the government and done in the name of its sovereignty. This is the logic rooted in Hobbes's Leviathan, in which people mutually agree to surrender some of their liberties in order to have a government that will deter potential wrongdoers, while protecting law-abiding citizens' safety and property. Such punitive practices, according to Shoham and Shavit (1995), reflect the philosophy and social ideology of a given society, and it is within this context that the goals of punishment should be clearly identified and discussed, as it provides a lucid connection to the modus operandi of society's executive branch, and thus to correctional operations.

The goals of punishment also reflect the way in which a society is structured, as well as its needs and cultural values at different points in time. Shoham and Shavit (1995) argue that the goals of punishment can be viewed according to utilitarian goals of given societies at a given time. According to this approach, they argue, the purpose of punishing offenders is to benefit and protect society. They further differentiate between three main groups of goals that lay on a utilitarian scale that ranges between non-utilitarian, semi-utilitarian and highly utilitarian. The goals are laid out in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Goals of Punishment According to Utilitarianism within Society

Non-Utilitarian Goals	Semi-Utilitarian Goals	Highly Utilitarian Goals
Reconciliation (Restorative justice)	Deterrence (specific & general)	Retribution/ Retaliation
Purification	Reparation
Atonement	Treatment & Rehabilitation
Prevention
Incapacitation
Banishment

Reconciliation

In highly cohesive societies, crimes were perceived as harmful to social balance and as contaminating social purity and harmony. Accordingly, social responses to deviant and criminal behavior were concerned with regaining this tranquility while restoring social harmony—that is, they pursued the practice of restorative justice. Such reconciliation is achieved by repairing the harm caused in collaboration with all members of the community who were directly harmed by the act. Under this aim, society holds a stake in the punishment and reintegration of the offender. As the first step in restoration, the offender needs to face his wrongdoing and acknowledge the damage done. Then that offender must make peace with members of his community in an effort to restore the balance that was disturbed. According to Braithwaite (1989), reconciliation by reintegrative shaming will reduce further criminality, as it presents the offender with the chance to regain status, while also building society's trust. In fact, such an approach focuses on rehabilitating both the community and its individuals, considering both to be victims. Supporters of this approach argue that the needs of the...