The Dissociative Theory of Punishment

• Author: Shirin Bakhshay
• Position: Thomas C. Grey Fellow, Stanford Law School; UC Santa Cruz, Ph.D. (Psychology)
• Pages: 1251-1333

ARTICLES

The Dissociative Theory of Punishment

SHIRIN BAKHSHAY*

The American public has complex views on criminal punishment. They

are driven primarily by retributive motivations. But they have other jus-

tice considerations, such as restoration and rehabilitation, that can be

activated in different ways. Laypersons are also motivated to psychologi-

cally distance and dissociate from those they perceive to be criminal

“others” and to see punishment itself as a kind of dissociation, embodied

by the prison form. The psychological processes that produce these

beliefs lead to an insistence on prison as a necessary criminal justice out-

come, despite reservations about its effectiveness and concerns about the

state of mass incarceration and punitive penal policy more generally.

This Article builds on the psychology of punishment literature to offer

a deeper understanding of the dissociative theory of punishment and how

it produces the belief in the necessity of prison. Drawing on original,

qualitative focus group data and analysis, this Article identifies the spe-

cific psychological mechanisms that motivate dissociation, explains the

role of the belief in retributive justice as part of this process, and offers

nuanced insights into the contours of the dissociative theory and the way

people psychologically reason about criminal punishment.

Identifying the components of the dissociative process and those beliefs

that are malleable has important practical and normative implications. It

also suggests the possibility of a different approach to criminal punish-

ment. Leveraging insights from focus group analysis as well as original

experimental work, this Article suggests a normative approach—restora-

tive punishment—that is more responsive to lay psychology. This Article

discusses strategies consistent with this approach that may be effective in

disrupting dissociation and building support for alternatives to incarcer-

ation, including bridging connections with criminal actors, reframing

alternatives to incarceration in ways that better align with the retributive

motivations of the public, and activating other conceptions of justice that

* Thomas C. Grey Fellow, Stanford Law School; UC Santa Cruz, Ph.D. (Psychology); Yale Law

School, J.D. © 2023, Shirin Bakhshay. For helpful conversations and generous feedback, I am grateful

to Aziza Ahmed, Ralph Richard Banks, Monica Bell, Rabia Belt, Guy-Uriel Charles, Beth Colgan,

George Fisher, Mugambi Jouet, Mona Lynch, Robert MacCoun, Julian Nyarko, Shaun Ossei-Owusu,

Bertrall Ross, Andrea Roth, Shirin Sinnar, David Alan Sklansky, Ji Seon Song, Robin Wall, and Robert

Weisberg. I am grateful to Meredith Bohen, Kylie Choi, Christopher Huberty, and Ana Ribadeneira for

invaluable research assistance. I am especially indebted to Craig Haney for providing the training and

inspiration to conduct this research. Most importantly, I am thankful to those community members who

shared their perspectives and made this work possible.

1251

are not well served by the imposition of a prison sentence. It then

explores two specific criminal justice policies through this normative

lens—restorative justice diversion and second look resentencing—and

discusses their psychological appeal. This Article ends by offering an em-

pirical agenda to test the mechanisms that drive dissociation and

explores the potential for a restorative punishment approach to criminal

justice policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253

I. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1258

A. THE RETRIBUTIVE NATURE OF PUNITIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1259

B. TOWARD A RESTORATIVE PUNISHMENT APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1262

II. THE DISSOCIATIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1262

A. DISSOCIATION FROM CRIMINAL OTHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1266

1. Psychological Distancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1267

2. Dehumanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271

3. Intractable Criminality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274

B. PRISON AS SEVERING THE CRIMINAL FROM SOCIETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1281

1. The Sociopsychological Meaning of Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1282

2. Conflation of Prison with Penological Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . 1285

a. Prison and Public Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1286

b. Prison and Retributive Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1290

C. RACE AND DISSOCIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1295

III. RESTORATIVE PUNISHMENT: A PSYCHOLOGICALLY RESPONSIVE

APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1297

A. BRIDGING THE DISTANCE WITH PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . 1299

1. The Case for Empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1300

2. Rounding Out Criminal Others Through Redemption

Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1303

B. REFRAMING PUNISHMENT AND ITS DIMENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1306

1252 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 111:1251

1. Restorative Justice as Punishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1307

2. Expanding the Meaning of Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312

3. Widening the Scope of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1316

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319

A. APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319

Focus Group Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1319

B. APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322

Focus Group Screening Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322

C. APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1326

Focus Group Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1326

D. APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330

Experimental Vignettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330

E. APPENDIX E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333

Sentence Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1333

INTRODUCTION

Despite tremendous efforts to reform the criminal justice system,

1

See, e.g., First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (codified in scattered

sections of 18, 21, and 34 U.S.C.); Tim Lau, Historic Criminal Justice Reform Legislation Signed into

Law, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUST. (Dec. 21, 2018, 1:10 PM), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/

analysis-opinion/historic-criminal-justice-reform-legislation-signed-law [https://perma.cc/3H3D-8BE6]

(describing how the First Step Act shortens sentences and enables retroactive resentencing of thousands

of inmates, proving the potential for bipartisan criminal penal reform); see also DENNIS SCHRANTZ,

STEPHEN T. DEBOR & MARC MAUER, THE SENT’G PROJECT, DECARCERATION STRATEGIES: H OW 5

STATES ACHIEVED SUBSTANTIAL PRISON POPULATION REDUCTIONS 5 (2018), http://arks.princeton.edu/

ark:/88435/dsp013b591c63t [https://perma.cc/E22M-77MD] (describing state-level criminal justice

reforms); Michael Campbell, Heather Schoenfeld & Paige Vaughn, Same Old Song and Dance? An

Analysis of Legislative Activity in a Period of Penal Reform, 22 PUNISHMENT & SOC’Y 389, 390 (2020)

(same).

America

remains the most punitive society in the Western world.

2

See Wendy Sawyer & Peter Wagner, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022, PRISON POL’Y

INITIATIVE (Mar. 14, 2022), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html [https://perma.cc/

4KAQ-BYVX].

And despite a general

sense among the lay public that the system is too punitive and mass incarceration

is a problem,

3

See Press Release, Vera Inst. of Just., New Poll Finds that Urban and Rural America Are

Rethinking Mass Incarceration (Apr. 19, 2018) (available at https://www.vera.org/newsroom/new-poll-

there is still a deeply entrenched resistance to decarceral reforms

1.

2.

3.

2023] THE DISSOCIATIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT 1253