skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 227968 Find in a Library
Title: Ethics of Punishment: Correctional Practice Implications
Journal: Aggression and Violent Behavior  Volume:14  Issue:4  Dated:July/August 2009  Pages:239-247
Author(s): Tony Ward; Karen Salmon
Date Published: July 2009
Page Count: 9
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Netherlands
Annotation: This paper outlines three major theories of punishment as applied to convicted offenders and discusses their implications for the ethical challenges of rehabilitation practice.
Abstract: One theory of punishment, called “consequentialism,” argues that there is a contingent relationship between the overall goal of crime reduction and the practice of punishment. This involves structuring adverse consequences for certain behaviors prohibited by law, so as to deter, incapacitate, or reform offenders, which in turn reduces the crime rate. One ethical challenge of this theory for rehabilitation practitioners is that the focus on manipulating and controlling offenders by attaching adverse consequences to particular behaviors undermines the dignity and autonomy of the individual. A second theory of punishment, called “retribution,” justifies punishment as intrinsic to ensuring that criminal behavior that inflicts harm on victims also brings approximately equal harm to perpetrators. Although punishment may not actually reduce crime, it is still necessary in order to balance the moral ledger. A major implication of this theory of punishment is that correctional practice involves only ensuring that punishment is properly inflicted without regard to its impact on the psychological well-being, subsequent behavior, and future life course of the offender. A third theory of punishment, called “communicative,” has a relationship focus. From this perspective, offenders are viewed as members of a normative community (i.e., “one of us”), such that they are bound and protected by the community’s public values: autonomy, freedom, privacy, and pluralism. The notion of equal moral status means that punishment should seek to persuade, rather than force, offenders to take responsibility for their crimes. The aim of punishment becomes the structuring of the offender’s environment and contacts so as to offer opportunities for him/her to examine personal values, associated behaviors and consequences, and consider how change can be beneficial. 36 references
Main Term(s): Corrections psychological training
Index Term(s): Custody vs treatment conflict; Forensic psychology; Psychologists role in corrections; Psychologists role in criminal justice; Punishment
Note: For other articles in this issue, see NCJ 227966-67 and NCJ 227969-71.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.