UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 20.1 Free with a free account
Crime, Punishment, and the Historical Development of Corrections
Criminology · Chapter 20: Corrections: Punishment, Probation, and PrisonsSection 20.1 · lesson 83 of 91video coming soon
← Evaluating Policing Models and Their Effectiveness in Modern SocietyNext lesson: Intermediate Sanctions and the Role of Probation and Parole →
In this lesson
5 rationales for punishment, and how American corrections took shape.
- State the rationales for punishment and what each justifies.
- Trace the historical development of corrections in America.
- Explain the debate over the growth in incarceration.
- Identify the rationale a described sentencing practice rests on.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,614 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
What Is Punishment Actually For
A judge must sentence a first-time offender for a property crime. Five different principles point to five different sentences. What is punishment actually for? This chapter turns to corrections, the part of the system that carries out punishment. We start with that basic question. There are five recognized answers, and they often point in different directions.
Roadmap
Where This Lesson Is Headed
We will see how the same offense can produce five very different sentences. Then we look at the evidence behind each rationale. After that, we trace how American corrections developed, from the colonial period to today. We close with the large growth in incarceration, and the debate over what caused it. Throughout, we keep one discipline in view. Where researchers disagree, we lay out the positions without picking a winner.
Five Rationales
Retribution and the Two Deterrences
Criminal punishment rests on five recognized rationales. Each one answers a different question about what punishment is for. Retribution asks what the offender deserves for the wrong already committed. It is justified by the act itself, not by any future benefit it might produce. Deterrence comes in two forms, and general deterrence asks how to discourage the wider public from offending. Specific deterrence asks how to discourage this particular offender from offending again.
Five Rationales
Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration Defined
Incapacitation asks how to stop this person from offending during a defined period. It works through physical removal, not persuasion. Rehabilitation asks how to change the offender, so they no longer wish or need to offend. And restoration asks how to repair the harm the offense caused, centering the victim and the community.
Conflict Example
One Offense Seen Through Retribution and Deterrence
These rationales are easy to list, but in practice they conflict. Picture one offense: a property crime by a first-time offender under serious economic strain. A retribution-focused sentence would be set mainly by how serious the offense was. The offender's circumstances and future risk would matter little. A deterrence-focused sentence might be severe, to send a general warning. Or it might stress a swift, predictable response, depending on which lever the court believes in.
Conflict Example
Same Facts, Five Different Sentences
An incapacitation-focused sentence would turn on the assessed risk of reoffending. For this first-time offender, that risk might be judged low, which offers little reason for a long term. A rehabilitation-focused sentence would follow whatever treatment need is identified. A restoration-focused sentence would center repair to the specific victim, and could look entirely different from the other four. Same facts, five filters, five meaningfully different sentences.
Evidence Review
Certainty Outperforms Severity in Deterring
Retribution connects directly to the just deserts position from lesson one point two. Punishment is deserved for the offense itself, and it is scaled through proportionality to the offense's seriousness, not to predictions about the offender's future. That makes retribution largely backward-looking, while deterrence looks forward, and there the evidence matters. Lesson six point one reviewed that evidence in detail. Perceived certainty of detection and response has more consistent empirical support than the severity of the penalty. This has a direct consequence for sentencing practice. An approach that relies mainly on severity to deter is building on the weaker-supported half of the relationship. An approach that stresses certain, swift responses draws on the better-supported mechanism.
Quick Check
Cameras, Patrols, and Deterrence
Quick check. A city adds cameras and patrols so burglars are caught far more often, with sentences unchanged. What does the evidence predict for deterrence? Pause, and decide. More deterrence. Perceived certainty rose, and certainty has the stronger support.
Incapacitation Limits
Selective Versus Collective and Diminishing Returns
Incapacitation takes two forms. Selective incapacitation aims confinement at specific people assessed as high risk of serious reoffending. Collective incapacitation applies a uniform rule, such as a fixed term for an offense category, with no individual risk assessment. Selective incapacitation depends entirely on a prediction problem, examined in lesson six point seven. Any prediction of future risk carries a false-positive rate. So the policy can be no sounder than the prediction underneath it. Incapacitation also faces diminishing returns. As a policy confines more people further down the risk distribution, each additional person is, on average, less likely to have offended seriously. So the crime reduction gained per person confined tends to fall as the policy expands. That is a counterintuitive point: more confinement does not buy proportionally more safety.
Rehabilitation History
From Nothing Works to Some Things Work
Rehabilitation has had a turbulent history in corrections. It dominated the mid-twentieth-century treatment era, introduced in lesson six point two. Then, in the nineteen seventies, an influential review of program evaluations found little evidence that rehabilitation worked as then practiced. That conclusion became known as the nothing-works position. It drew a significant critique, as later scholars argued the review was overstated, and failed to separate well-implemented programs from poorly implemented ones. That critique links to the discussion of implementation failure in lesson seven point eight. From the nineteen eighties onward, meta-analytic research identified program features linked to measurable reductions in reoffending. Those features include focusing on higher-risk individuals, and targeted cognitive-behavioral content of the kind covered in lesson six point five. The consensus moved from nothing works toward a more qualified view: some things work, under specific conditions. Restoration, developed in lesson eight point three, centers repairing harm, often by involving the victim directly.
Objections Compared
Retribution, Deterrence, and Incapacitation Weaknesses
Now the five rationales together, each with its principal objection. Retribution would give a term scaled to seriousness alone. Its weakness is that it offers no mechanism for reducing future offending. Deterrence would stress certainty and swiftness over severity. But the deterrent effect on one individual is hard to isolate empirically. Incapacitation would set the term by assessed risk, and so it inherits an imperfect prediction with a real false-positive rate.
Objections Compared
Rehabilitation and Restoration Weaknesses
Rehabilitation would match a term or program to an identified need. Its objection is that it was historically oversold, and its results depend heavily on implementation quality. Restoration would create an obligation to the specific victim, possibly outside a conventional custodial term. Its objection is that it may not serve broader deterrence or incapacitation goals. No rationale is free of a serious objection, which is exactly why the choice among them matters.
Historical Stages
From Corporal Punishment to the Penitentiary
American corrections developed through several recognizable stages. The colonial period relied heavily on corporal punishment and public shaming, rather than confinement. The penitentiary, invented in the early republic, made confinement itself the main punishment. Two competing early systems shaped it. Both relied on isolation and reflection as the route to reform, but they differed in their arrangements for labor and contact among prisoners.
Historical Stages
Reformatories, Treatment, and Determinate Sentencing
In the later nineteenth century, the reformatory movement added age-based differentiation and an explicit reform orientation, especially for younger offenders. The rehabilitative era dominated much of the twentieth century, tying release to an individual's treatment progress. Then came the sentencing reform period, covered in lesson one point two. It shifted back toward determinate, offense-based sentencing. Notice that each stage changed what punishment was meant to accomplish, not just its methods.
Incarceration Growth
Prison Growth Diverges From Crime Trends
In the later decades of the twentieth century, American incarceration grew substantially. The Bureau of Justice Statistics documents that general direction. Researchers have noted a striking pattern alongside it. Incarceration grew during a period when the crime trend, tracked by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, did not move in lockstep with it. The two trends diverged, and why that happened is an active empirical debate.
Competing Explanations
Policy, Drug Enforcement, and Disputed Causes
Some researchers point mainly to sentencing policy changes, including the mandatory minimums covered in lesson fifteen point two. Others emphasize intensified drug enforcement specifically. And the link to crime rates is itself disputed, as researchers disagree on how much growth reflects offending levels rather than policy choices. International correctional statistics also document that the American incarceration rate is high relative to many other nations. That comparison is a documented fact, but its causes sit in the same disputed territory.
Big Picture
Correctional Philosophy Mirrors Its Era
Step back and read this history as a whole. Each major shift in correctional philosophy arose alongside the broader conditions of its time. That holds for the move from corporal punishment to the penitentiary, and from the penitentiary to the reformatory. It holds again for the turn to rehabilitation, and for the return to determinate sentencing. These shifts reflected social, economic, and political conditions, not just evidence about what punishment achieves. In other words, correctional philosophy has never developed in a vacuum driven purely by findings. It has consistently mirrored the political commitments of the era that produced it. That pattern is worth keeping in mind for any reform proposal today. Ask what evidence supports it, and then ask what conditions are driving it.
Judge Revisited
Naming the Rationale Behind Each Sentence
Back to our judge, and the first-time offender from the start. The court must choose between two available sentences for the same property crime. One is a shorter sentence paired with a structured treatment program. The other is a longer sentence with no treatment component. Before deciding, the court is asked to state which rationale each option primarily serves. The shorter sentence with treatment leans on rehabilitation. The longer sentence without treatment leans on incapacitation, or perhaps retribution. Why does naming the rationale help? Because once it is explicit, each option can be tested against the evidence for that rationale. A hidden rationale cannot be challenged, but a stated one can.
Practice
Match Three Sentences to Rationales
Let's practice: name the rationale behind each of three sentences. A sentence requiring direct repayment to the victim rests on restoration. A term set by how likely the person is to reoffend rests on incapacitation. And a term scaled only to how serious the offense was rests on retribution.
Reverse Problem
Spotting Collective Incapacitation
Finally, the reverse problem: a policy imposes a lengthy, fixed term on everyone convicted in a broad offense category, whatever their circumstances. Which form is this? Pause, and decide. That is collective incapacitation, and its principal objection is that it ignores individual risk, with diminishing returns as it widens.
Key Takeaways
Four Points to Remember
Let's pull it together. Punishment has five rationales, and they often conflict. Rehabilitation and restoration answer different questions. Certainty deters better than severity. And correctional philosophy has always mirrored its era.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Crime, Punishment, and the Historical Development of Corrections
What are the five rationales for punishment?
What is the difference between selective and collective incapacitation?
Does harsher punishment deter crime better than a higher chance of getting caught?
How did American corrections develop from the colonial period to today?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →