What Are Prisons For? Four Answers That Pull in Different Directions
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Ask why someone is imprisoned and four distinct answers are available, each with a long philosophical tradition, and they do not merely differ in emphasis. They recommend different sentence lengths, different conditions and different decisions about release, which is why penal policy is incoherent in most countries: the system is asked to do all four things at once.
The four justifications
Each answers the question in its own terms and each implies a different policy:
- •Retribution, holding that punishment is deserved because of what was done, which is backward-looking, requires proportionality between the offence and the sentence, and does not depend on any future benefit
- •Deterrence, holding that punishment prevents future offences, split between deterring the individual punished and deterring others, and which is forward-looking and would in principle justify punishing more harshly than deserved if that worked
- •Incapacitation, holding that a person in prison cannot offend against the public during that time, which justifies detention by predicted future dangerousness rather than by past conduct
- •Rehabilitation, holding that the purpose is to change the person so they do not reoffend, which implies release when that is achieved and treatment rather than suffering
- •Restoration, a fifth position gaining ground, which treats crime as a harm to be repaired between the people involved rather than an offence against the state to be punished
- •Denunciation, sometimes listed separately, which holds that punishment expresses society's condemnation and reinforces shared norms
Where they conflict
The tensions are practical rather than academic. Retribution caps a sentence at what the offence deserves, while incapacitation would extend it for someone considered dangerous, which is why indeterminate sentences based on risk assessment are philosophically contested and were abolished in England after serious problems. Deterrence would justify making an example of someone, punishing them beyond desert to influence others, which retributivists regard as using a person as a means. Rehabilitation implies release when a person has changed, which conflicts with a fixed sentence proportionate to the offence and with public expectations. Conditions follow the same split: a retributive prison need only be unpleasant enough, a rehabilitative one needs education, training, therapy and contact with family, and those are different buildings with different budgets. The compromise reached in most systems is to state all the purposes in legislation and leave judges to weigh them, which produces inconsistency that is criticised as unfairness and is an accurate reflection of the underlying disagreement.
What the evidence says
Some of these claims are empirical and have been tested. Deterrence research consistently finds that the certainty of being caught deters far more than the severity of the punishment, which implies that investing in detection does more than lengthening sentences, and that potential offenders frequently do not know or consider the sentence for what they are doing. Individual deterrence performs poorly, with imprisonment associated with equal or higher reoffending than non-custodial alternatives in many comparisons, once like cases are compared. Incapacitation works while it lasts and is limited by the difficulty of predicting dangerousness, since risk instruments produce many false positives. Rehabilitation programmes show modest but genuine effects when they are well designed, targeted at higher-risk offenders and delivered as intended, which is a substantial qualification because prison conditions frequently prevent that. Meanwhile prison itself causes harm that affects reoffending, including loss of housing, employment and family contact, and exposure to a concentrated criminal environment.
The comparative picture
Imprisonment rates vary between countries by more than an order of magnitude, and the variation tracks policy rather than crime rates closely. The United States imprisons a far larger share of its population than any comparable country, the result of sentencing policy changes from the 1970s onward rather than of crime levels, and the consequences have been documented extensively, including concentration in particular communities and effects lasting across generations. Scandinavian systems imprison far fewer people, use shorter sentences and operate prisons on a normalisation principle, arranging conditions to resemble ordinary life as closely as security allows on the reasoning that people who will return to society should not be taught to live in a way that prepares them badly for it, and reoffending rates in those systems are comparatively low, with the caveat that societies differ in many other respects. Alternatives to custody, including community sentences, electronic monitoring, restorative conferencing and treatment orders, are cheaper and perform at least as well for many offences, which is an argument made increasingly on fiscal grounds where the philosophical argument failed.
The takeaway
Retribution looks backward and caps punishment at what is deserved, deterrence and incapacitation look forward and would extend it, and rehabilitation implies release once a person has changed, so the four purposes recommend different sentences and different prisons. Evidence finds that certainty of detection deters far more than severity, that imprisonment frequently increases reoffending relative to alternatives, and that rehabilitation works modestly when well delivered. Imprisonment rates differ between countries far more than crime rates do.