The five goals for contemporary sentencing

We know from our studies that the five goals for contemporary sentencing are: 1) retribution; 2) incapacitation; 3) deterrence; 4) rehabilitation; and 5) restoration. In several of the countries we have studied this week under the Corrections heading, we see a combination of intent in the sentencing philosophy. Some of the combinations, for instance, include retribution and rehabilitation, incapacitation and rehabilitation, or deterrence and rehabilitation. If you will recall from your CCJ 3200 Introduction to Corrections course the United States has used each of them at one time or another in a cyclical fashion, and often uses all at the same time. For purposes of discussion, argue one of the following points.

A] The sentencing philosophy of [one of the countries we studied] is a better one than attempting to utilize all of them. Explain your reasoning and the results you would expect.

B] People are different and have different motivations to commit crime. We need to use all of the various sentencing philosophies. Explain your reasoning and the results you would expect.

C] We are trying to be all things to all people and should concentrate on one sentencing philosophy, that of [insert your choice.] What would this accomplish that the use of multiple philosophies does not? Why?

Related Posts:

Discuss the practical implications of alternative and innovative sentencing options

Criminal Sentencing

The seven goals of sentencing