I agree that proponents of the utilitarianism theory of punishment believe that punishment should be used as a deterrent against future crimes, whether as a general deterrent (such as mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for gun possession by convicted felons) or an only deterrent (such as the death penalty for heinous crimes). The retributivist theory is that the offender should pay for his crime proportionate to the harm caused to the victim.
It’s true that the denunciation theory attempts to bridge the gap of deficiencies between the two theories. At first thought, I believed the denunciation theory was altogether contrary as its name implies, but it has some good attributes from both theories combined into one. Society seeks to vindicate the victim by punishing the offender, but that punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. Sometimes, the impact of the crime that was committed has such an impact on society or a community that this balance may be blurred. For example, in the current case of the man in Iowa who kidnapped and killed the college student, his bond is already set at $5 million, even though he is an illegal immigrant with little or no means to raise bail. In addition, the case has been so publicized and politicized that it may be difficult for him to get a “fair trial.”
You mentioned in your post that when criminals are kept away from the society, they are unable to trouble their communities with their criminal tendencies, and that “[i]importantly, prisons have been in the most recent times referred to as correctional facilities. The criminal justice system seeks to rehabilitate criminals such that by the time they finish serving their time, they come out as projductive members of the society who no longer
rely on crime as a means of survival” (S. Polston, Discussion Question 2, 8/23/2018). Unfortunately, while incarceration does prevent offenders from being able to recommit crimes during the period of their incarceration, very little (if anything) is being done to rehabilitate some offenders — they spend their time working in prison, opting for one class or another, or finding ways to whittle away the time until they are released. In Florida, some offenders are housed in prisons, sent on work details within the facility, offering GED classes, etc., and when released, sent home with a bus ticket and a check in the amount of $150. If an offender has been incarcerated for a number of years, this kind of treatment
will put him/her at a substantial disadvantage when released —time stopped for the offender when he was incarcerated; however, as the world moves forward, he is dropped off in time and space unfamiliar to him. The better solution is for the offender to be provided a means to reintegrate himself into society in a way where s/he can be more likely to succeed, such as work release, halfway houses, etc. The deterrent would be that the offender can earn the privilege of going to work release and, upon successful completion of his/her remaining time in work release, go home with money saved from his/her earnings. Halfway houses help offenders become accustomed to life skills such as paying bills, living among others, completing chores, attending counseling, etc. I’ve known a few people who went through the work release program — in fact, my daughter worked at the county work release facility. Some were successful, and some failed, but I think the most successful offender is the one provided with the most tools for an independent living before he is released into society.
Do you agree? Why or why not?