History of punishment

Ancient Era 3000 BCE — 500 CE

  • Severe corporal and capital punishment for minor offences

  • Stoning, stocks, pillories crucifixion, beheading

  • Trial by ordeal (fire, water, hot iron)

  • Public shaming, humiliation

  • No state punishment: Vigilantism, retaliation, persecution

  • No legal authority

  • Harsh

  • Barbaric

  • No prisons

  • No police

  • No laws or specific punishments for specific crimes

Medieval 500 CE — 1500 CE

  • Public spectacle and divine intervention

  • Offending behaviour was viewed through a spiritual lens

  • Crime often considered a sin and punishment a form of divine justice

  • Severe corporal and capital punishment

  • No state punishment — Vigilantism, relation and persecution

  • No legal authority — Power rested solely with the church and local leaders (feudal lords)

  • Inconsistent and disproportionate applications of ‘justice‘

  • Crime against god not people

  • Punishment is to punish the devil

  • More spiritual but still barbaric

  • Lawless / no proper authority

Medieval: corporal punishment

  • Dragged through the streets by a horse: women who publicly challenged their husbands

  • Whipping posts: ties to a post given set of lashes in publicly

  • Pillory: head and hands pinioned between two blocks of wood

  • The scolds bridle and stock: Feet clamped between two boards

  • Hanging: was most common form of death penalty

  • Shaming and humiliation

  • Deterrence

  • For crimes such as stealing a sheep, vagrancy, petty larceny, debt, public drunkenness

  • Punishment was public

  • Death sentence

Medieval era: bloody code 17th C

Punishment in Europe did not immediately become more humane

In 17th C England entered the period knows as the “Bloody Code“ — prior Enlightenment period

  • Widespread poverty and significant social unrest

  • Highly punitive, widespread executions

  • Crimes punishable by death dramatically increased

  • More 200 people were executed (hanging) for minor offences such as deer stealing

  • Deterrence

Summary

Both Ancient and Medieval eras relied extensively on harsh corporal and capital punishments

  • Punishment acts as a deterrent

  • Punishments were public-shaming and humiliation

  • No state punishment or legal frameworks

  • Power of the church and local leaders

Transition from medieval to enlightenment

  • Roman law- 715CE- foundation for modern civil law systems in Europe

  • The Magna Carta 1215CE – foundation for English legal frameworks- e.g., ‘fair trial’ ‘ human right’

  • (Also Hammurabi’s Code- King Hammurabi of Babylon- Iraq)

Enlightenment period

The ‘Age of Reason’

Marked a turning point in shaping the modern CJS

  • Move away from divine justice

  • Emphasising reason / rationality, science and individual rights/reform

  • Punishment during this period did not immediately become more humane

  • Shift towards rational and proportionate punishment (justice) — ‘moral philosophy’

Decline of executions

Punishment include:

  1. Transportation — sending offenders overseas

  2. Rise of prisons and state control punishment

Enlightenment period: Transportation

  • Transportation: in the 18th C, Particularly in Britain individuals convicted of crimes were transported to colonies such as Australia as a form of exile.

  • This form of punishment was as an alternative to ‘execution‘

  • Deterrence

Enlightenment period: The rise of prisons and state punishment

  • The rise of prisons, state-control punishment and concept of ‘justice‘

  • Cesare Beccaria — Developed classical school of criminology ‘classism‘

  • People commit crime because of free will and rational choices

  • Punishment should therefore be rational, proportionate, and just ‘Just deserts’

  • Principal of ‘proportionality’ (justice)

  • Laid the foundation of retributive approach eg. imprisonment

In 1609 King James — every county in England had to have a carceral

  • Deterrence was the main focus

The Rise of prisons: Principle of less eligibility

  • Prisoners cannot be treated better than those who are worst off in society

  • Prison cannot be a way to achieve better living conditions

  • “Conditions of imprisonment must not be higher than the living conditions of the poorest labourer.” (Scott and Flynn 2014, p6)

  • If punishment is not unpleasant, it fails as a deterrent.

  • To date prison not just the deprivation of liberty, but harsh treatment

  • This principle continue to be upheld by the penal system today

Enlightenment: The rise of prisons

  • Michel prisons introduced mechanisms of surveillance, regulation, and
    discipline, linking punishment to broader social control in contemporary time.

  • Jeremy Bentham ‘utilitarianism’ approach – ‘reform offenders’
    Emphasised reducing harm while promoting collective well-being ‘the greatest happiness principle.
    Punishment is justified only if it prevents greater future harm ‘Consequentialism’ – ‘Consequentialist theory’
    Utilitarianism justifies punishment only if it produces positive outcomes for society.
    This laid foundation for ‘Reductivism approach – e.i., ‘rehabilitation ’

  • John Howard – campaign for ‘reform’
    Prisons should become places for reform rather than purely punishment

Enlightenment: Rise of Legal Frameworks

Transition from medieval to enlightenment

  • Roman law- 715CE- foundation for modern civil law systems in Europe

  • The Magna Carta 1215CE –foundation for English legal frameworks- e.g., ‘fair trial’ ‘ human rights’

  • Also Hammurabi’s Code- King Hammurabi of Babylon- Iraq -retributive


Summary

Rise of prisons

  • Beccaria developed classical school of criminology ‘classicism’

  • Classicism laid foundation of principle of proportionality “just deserts” which is an integral element underpins retributive approach in contemporary justice.

  • The principle of less Eligibility still shapes debates about prison conditions, rehabilitation, and social inequality today

  • Jeremy Bentham & John Howard – led utilitarianism that laid the foundation for ‘rehabilitation’

  • Although approaches to punishment have become somewhat more humane, the underlying justifications for punishment remain largely the same in contemporary times.


Positivism 19th 20th C The Golden Age

Marked a shift from moral philosophy to scientific criminology

  • Focused on the scientific study of criminal behaviour, emphasising the links between crime and biological, psychological, and social factors.

  • Positivism – not based on ‘free will’ or rational choice— crime often stems from deterministic factors (genetics, mental health, poverty) beyond individual control.

  • This link utilitarian and period marked the birth of the “Rehabilitation Ideal”– ‘treatment model’

  • Co-existence – rise of ‘dual approach’ – focus more on ‘rehabilitation’

Martinson Doctrine ‘What Works‘

  • Martinson Report (1974) – ‘What Works’

  • Reviewed over 200 studies on rehabilitation programmes in the USA

  • Concluded that “nothing works” when it comes to rehabilitating
    offenders- this caused a major shift:

  • Led to widespread scepticism about the effectiveness of rehabilitation
    programmes.

  • Contributed to the decline of the “rehabilitation ideal” in favour of more
    punitive measures ‘retributive approach’- ‘imprisonment’

Contemporary time: historical lens

The CJS integration of both retributive and reductive approaches (co-existence), with the balance shifting across different historical periods

  • 18th–19th Century – Enlightenment - Retributive Focus: Punishment emphasised retribution, including corporal punishment, the death penalty, and imprisonment.

  • 20th Century – Positivist era – Reductive Focus: Emphasis shifted toward rehabilitation, however retributive measures continued to coexist alongside rehabilitative initiatives (co-existence).

  • Late 20th Century – Martinson 1974 Doctrine: A renewed focus on retributive approaches. Rehabilitation remained present, though often secondary (co-existence).

  • 21st Century – privatisation and retributive: The focus largely returned to retributive measures, with policies prioritising deterrence, less focus on rehabilitation (co existence)


  • Deterrence remains the main focus

  • Capital punishment still exist– e.g., Death penalty

  • Corporal punishment still exist

  • Co-existence Retributive & rehabilitation – but the focus is more on retributive ‘punitive measures’ - e.g., ‘imprisonment’

Arguments against

  • Violates fundamental human rights

  • Irreversible and mistakes happen

  • Doesn’t deter crime (no deterrence)

  • Discriminatory/ disproportional — target the poor

Arguments for

  • Acts as a deterrent by demonstrating that crime was wrong

  • Only used for serious offences (e.g. murder)

  • Cultural and Religious reasons: necessary for maintaining moral or social order.

(Hood, 2001)

Where is capital punishment used in contemporary time?

  • The UK abolished for murder in 1965

  • The Human Rights Act 1998 fully abolished it for all crimes