ABSTRACT

There are at least two ways that we might think about theories of punishment. The first is to consider each theory as an individual theory with a core principle. Our focus then concerns identifying theoretical approaches and considering their acceptability in terms of factors such as coherence but not empirical findings. The alternative is to examine each theory of punishment by how well it speaks to practices in light of the evidence.

The first and second parts of this book contain seven chapters that consider each theory in terms of core principles and coherence. The third and final part of this book will take up four different case studies relating to practices. This division is important because some theories may be found highly coherent as a theory and yet impractical. When we critically analyse any theory of punishment, it is useful to be aware of these two different, although related, standpoints.

In this first part, we will examine more traditional theories of punishment. These theories will include retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Each theory will be discussed individually within its own chapter. While these theories may be understood in light of a single aim or principle, each is also perhaps surprisingly complex. This part will set the scene for Part 2, where we will consider various attempts to defend ‘mixed’ hybrid theories of punishment that bring together elements from different theories we will consider in Part 1.