M1: Purposes of Punishment

The consideration of prison as an appropriate response to criminal or deviant behavior involves analyzing the practical outcomes and potential alternatives for specific scenarios:
- Adams: In a scenario involving debt or financial loss (e.g., paying back a hotel), placing the individual in prison may be counterproductive because it prevents them from earning the money needed for restitution. A civil lawsuit for breach of contract might serve as a more effective response.
- Bones: In cases of public intoxication and arrest, prison might not provide the necessary treatment to prevent future occurrences. An alternative to consider is civil commitment, which focuses on treatment rather than mere incarceration.
- Conrad: In the case of a corporate executive dealing with wastewater violations, imprisonment might cause other executives to either strictly obey environmental guidelines or abandon projects involving wastewater entirely. In such instances, a regulatory fine might be a preferable deterrent or corrective measure.

All discussions regarding the efficacy of prison or fines revolve around two central issues:
- When is it a good idea to punish?
- What kind of punishment should be applied?
Depriving an individual of liberty and stigmatizing them as a criminal requires strong justification. Generally, there are five recognized rationales or justifications for punishment.

Definition and Purpose: Often called "retribution" or "just dessert," this rationale is based on moral condemnation. It posits that individuals who commit bad acts deserve to be punished.
Scope: Retribution is not merely about revenge for the victim; it is about ensuring blameworthy individuals are held accountable for their behavior and that justice is served for both the victim and society.
Challenges of Implementation:
- Calibrating blameworthiness: It is difficult to determine exactly how culpable a person is.
- Proportionate Sentencing: Determining the exact amount of punishment (e.g., one month, one year, or five years for individuals like Adams, Bones, or Conrad) is complex.
Legal Necessity: Retribution is a principal reason for the existence of criminal law, distinguishing it from other legal fields (tort, property, or contract law).
Systemic Legitimacy: Criminal law allows society to express moral outrage. If the law were divorced from blameworthiness—such as imposing an automatic five-year sentence regardless of the harm caused or the actor's intent (malicious vs. unintentional)—the government and the legal system might lose public legitimacy.

Definition: The goal of using punishment to discourage other members of society from engaging in similar criminal behavior.
Comparison to Civil Law: While civil actions (tort and property law) can deter, some individuals are "judgment proof."
- These include actors who are wealthy enough to easily afford damages.
- It also includes those who have no money at all and therefore do not fear financial penalties.
- In these cases, the threat of prison is the primary deterrent.
Challenges and Limitations:
- Over-deterrence: Extreme punishments, such as the death penalty for jaywalking, would maximize deterrence but violate proportionality and discourage people from normal activities (like walking outside).
- Communication Barriers: Fine-tuned adjustments to sentencing (e.g., increasing a maximum sentence from 2 to 4 years, or 5 to 10 years) rarely impact crime rates. People are often unaware of these changes.
- Perception of Risk: Many actors do not believe they will be caught. The historical anecdote "picking pockets at the execution of a pickpocket" illustrate this; in Mary Old England, pickpockets would steal from the crowd gathered to watch a hanging for the same crime because they believed they were too skilled to be caught.

Unlike retribution and general deterrence, which are often the focus of legislators, the final three goals are primary considerations during the sentencing of specific individuals. They aim to prevent recidivism.
Specific Deterrence: Focuses on the most effective way to deter a specific person (e.g., Adams, Bones, or Conrad) from reoffending. This considers whether prison, fines, or other measures are most appropriate.
Incapacitation: Involves assessing if an individual is so dangerous that imprisonment or another intervention is required to prevent them from committing further crimes.
Rehabilitation: Involves treatment modalities intended to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. These include:
- Medication.
- Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).
- Vocational training.
Common Difficulty: These goals are hard to implement because society is not consistently good at identifying high-risk individuals or determining the best course of action to change their behavior.

The Case of the Three Sailors: A famous case found in criminal law casebooks involving three sailors charged with murder by cannibalism. This case prompts discussion on whether the English government's decision to punish was justified and which rationale (retribution, general deterrence, or individual prevention) underpinned the decision.
The Kansas Civil Confinement Case: This case involves an individual the state of Kansas sought to confine after he had already served his criminal sentence on the grounds of dangerousness. The United States Supreme Court permitted this confinement, ruling that the deprivation of liberty was not technically "punishment," even though the individual had already served his sentence for his most recent crime.