1

The retributive principle –that the wrongdoers should be punished because they deserve it-is in
some ways the complete antithesis of reductionism.

Address this contention within an exploration of the nature of retributive and reductionist
principles of punishment.

4th edition of the penal system an introduction –cavadino

Reductionism is defined as the ‘mechanics’ of reducing crime and reoffending, whereas

retributivism is more punishment focused because it is based on the premise that it is
‘deserved by the offender’. This article will discuss what these two principles mean in
relation to the criminal justice system - particularly in prisons - and the new British
Government proposals.

There are different methods of reductionism and it is generally accepted that it is a part of the
British legal system, and has been for a long time.1 However which type to use (deterrence,
incapacitation or rehabilitation being the main categories) has been a controversial topic and
has changed with time.

There are different rehabilitative schemes in place, tailored to the offence, but due to
problems such as finance they are not always available to the prisoners, and if they are, they
are often of poor quality.2 Reform used to be the idea that a criminal should be ‘treated’ as if
they were ill of the mind and if they could be cured it would stop them reoffending. This
nature has now changed and the ‘coerced cure’ is now a ‘facilitated change’.3 It is no longer
forced but helps the offender stop reoffending by using such techniques as improving their
cognitive and reasoning skills. It looks to the root of the problem and seeks to solve it, which
in theory should stop the reoffending.

The problem with this theory is that it takes a very positive view of human nature. As to
whether you are of the opinion that retributivism or rehabilitation should be used will likely
depend on whether you are of the opinion that the state of human nature is ‘brutish and
short’4 or that man is a ‘noble savage’.5 Essentially whether one believes man is inherently
good or bad. If they are inherently good it makes rehabilitation possible, whereas if bad,
punishment would be more effective.

1
Penitentiary Act 1779
2
Sir Robin Auld, former Lord Justice ‘underneath it all is a lack of resources’.
3
Morris 1974 13-20
4
Thomas Hobbes Leviathen 1651
5
The social contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau
 2

Rehabilitation, as a theory, is clearly used as a principle in the justice system and the new
coalition government has announced a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to hone in on the principle
even more. The ambiguities as to the nature of that rehabilitation arise when considering how
to tackle the problems that run alongside that theory in practice. For example the
overcrowding of British prisons, where there is a record high of over 80,000 people,6 there
was a proposal to introduce ‘titan prisons’;7 though this has now been abandoned it is an
example of the different ways to approach the same aims.

Reductionism, through deterrence, is the only principle where it could be said to overlap
slightly into retributivism in that by making an example of someone you not only punish
them but often more than they deserve, to prevent them reoffending and to deter others from
becoming offenders – thus, in theory, you reduce the crime as well as punishing the offender.
Deterrence can be individual or general; in practice, individual deterrence has been shown to
be mostly ineffective.8 General deterrence, though more successful than individual, is still not
effective.9 Despite this, it has still been used (for example, for drink driving offences)
although in more modern times it has gained recognition that having a more severe
punishment is not more likely to deter.10 Indeed it was stated in the 1990 White Paper ‘Crime,
Justice and Protecting the Public’11 that criminals often do not have the capacity to make a
rational calculation and realise the consequences of their actions. By the time they do, they
have little choice but to remain a criminal as they have been subject to ‘labelling effects’
from society. Therefore they will continue to associate themselves with other criminals and
create a cycle.

To break this cycle and stop offending, incapacitation is often used, most notably by custodial
sentences in prison.12 While incapacitation does protect the public (if the criminal does not
manage to break out of prison),13 it could be said that it is hard to justify when a custodial
sentence is the only way. For example, a life sentence for burglary cannot be said to be fair
and just. Even if that approach was to be taken it fails to acknowledge a ‘new generation’ of
criminals that would fill the void. It is for those reasons that modern prisons not only
incapacitate but also try to incorporate reform as part of their sentence.

Retributivism and reductionism can work alongside each other as the former looks to the past
and the latter looks to the future. However exploring the nature of these categories in theory
is different to exploring their nature in practice because you have external problems that run
alongside them. There are measures in place, such as drug rehabilitation measures while
offenders are in prison and access to educational services, but due to problems such as lack of

6
The Howard league for penal reform
7
Ministry of justice, titan prisons
8
West 1982
9
Von Hirsh et al 1999 ch6
10
Bottoms 2004 63-6
11
Home office 1990 para 2.8
12
Criminal justice act 2003 ‘ imprisonment for public protection’ ‘aimed at incapacitating offenders’
13
Prisoner escapes by clinging on to bottom of security van as it drives out of jail by Colin Fernandez
 3

funding, these theories and programmes are often not able to reach the prisoners and when
they do they can target ‘starts’ and ‘exits’ instead of outcomes and change.

Traditionally retributivism was simply to punish; modern retributivism involves

proportionality so that there is an idea of ‘just desserts’ on the punishment ‘tariff’. We
discipline the soul in modern days rather than the body.14 The meaning of proportionality is
for the courts to decide in each individual case – though there are some guidelines and
precedents.15 Retributivism does have rights. If when using reductionism, you made such an
example of one criminal that it reduced their level of crime, it would be justified – though
morally wrong to make an example of that one person. Retributivism will only last as long as
the punishment is for and it ‘can be an expensive way of making bad people worse,16 (75 per
cent of offenders sentenced for short jail term reoffend within two years).17 Reductionism is
ideally a more permanent, cheaper option and it is considered to be more socially desirable.

In a recent green paper the Government has made plans to save up to £259 million a year, by
2017, by reducing reconviction rates amongst offenders; these savings will then be reinvested
into rehabilitation. However if you do not have the effective rehabilitation set up in the first
place you cannot break the cycle of reoffending. There have also been other measures to
encourage people to invest in projects to rehabilitate people via methods such as ‘social
impact bonds’. Potentially, it means that people can make money out of crime but in a way
that pays those who are not offending but investing in stopping it.

Cavadino and Digman state that retributivism is implausible because of the problems with
sentencing,18 which are undeniable, but does not mean that punishment cannot be used,
merely that sentencing needs improving to obtain consistency, transparency and
proportionality. In helping to do this, it is suggested that ‘compromise’ theories19 using both
reductionist and retributivist theories will be more successful. Especially as there is
uncertainty as to which ‘state of nature’ theory is correct. The government seems to be
incorporating the idea of compromise because they have stated that ‘community and custodial
sentences will be based on four pillars, punishment, rehabilitation and work for offenders and
reparation for victims’. How this will be funded in light of additional annual cuts of six per
cent to the Ministry of Justice budget is unclear.20

Under the previous UK Labour government (1997 – 2010) 3,600 offences were created, 1000
of which carry a prison sentence. This is perhaps a more retributive approach because of the
way prisons are actually run, rather than the way they are intended to be run, so that it creates
hardened criminals out of those who were originally convicted of a lesser offence. Labour’s
approach has been strongly criticised by David Cameron as ‘incompetent authoritarianism’21

14
Philosopher Michel Foucault-politics.co.uk
15
For example www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
16
Home Office 1990 para 27
17
Former Conservative Home Secretary, David Waddington
18 th
4 edition of the penal system an introduction
19
Honderich 1984 ch6
20
www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=397
21
Green paper para 2 page 10
 4

and that prisons simply ‘warehouse’ criminals.22 However he proposes to ‘set the police
free’23 in order to achieve reductionist aims, which might lead to a disproportionate
delegation of authority and further problems.

The idea that retributivism is the complete antithesis of reductionism could be said to be
incorrect in that the opposite of punishment is not reducing an illegal action but would surely
be rewarding the action. It has been demonstrated, using current affairs, that reductionism is
frequently used in conjunction with retributivism and it is possible for them to overlap. If
they were the ‘complete antithesis’ of each other it would be unlikely they would be able to
do this. Striking the balance between the two principles and using the right methods within
them seems to cause the most ambiguity, especially as public policy is a big influence. The
results of which can be seen in the drastically different approaches in other countries. For
example, recently in America they introduced a prison rodeo in Louisiana state prison where
inmates can volunteer to be in the rodeo and can win cash prizes. The public are invited to
come and watch. The prisoners are untrained and often get hurt, but it is seen as
rehabilitation.24

As societies change the balance between the two principles and their natures are likely to
continue to change with the introduction of new technologies – such as it has had to do
already with new types of crime such as identity fraud and cyber-crime. With the statement
that ‘prisons will become places of education, hard work, rehabilitation and restoration,’25 it
is unlikely that the use of the principles of retributivism and reductionism themselves will
change. However the methods in which they are implemented are likely to change. With 73
per cent of released prisoners reconvicted26 there is evidence that the current systems are not
the most advantageous. Though perhaps it is not in the UK’s best interests to follow the
example of Russia and start providing sunbeds and ‘spa facilities’ to offenders in prison.27 In
such examples it is clear why retributivism and reductionism could be seen as the antithesis
of each other but it needs to be remembered that confining someone to a certain space
regardless of the facilities will be a form of punishment. Whichever method the governments
use more of, both retributivism and reductionism are essential as retributivism essentially
encourages public confidence in the justice system (which according to Ian Duncan Smith is
only at 25 per cent) and reductionism is needed in order to keep the public safe. The two
could even be said to complement rather than conflict with each other.

22
Green paper para 1 page 4
23
Green paper para 5 page 14
24
Rodeo show at Louisiana’s Angola prison by Andy Gallacher
25
Para 7 page 15 green paper
26
Kershaw 1999
27
BBC news, Russia to install sunbeds for prisoners
 5

Bibliography

4th edition of the penal system an introduction –cavadino and Digman

http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/moj-structural-reform-plana.pdf

http://www.justice.gov.uk/compendium-reoffending.htm

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Analysis/prison-overcrowding.html

http://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/roa/breaking_the_circle_-
_government_response_to_the_report_of_the_review_of_the_rehabilitation_of_offenders_act
_1974.pdf

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/cp1008.pdf

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/family%20breakdown.pdf

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05646.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165827/Prisoner-escapes-clinging-security-van-
drives-jail.html

http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/policing-and-crime/prison-
rehabilitation-$366690.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91211-0008.htm

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=397
 6

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/19/investors-pay-for-prisoner-rehabilitation

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article7058730.e
ce

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/prisoner-voting-rights.pdf

http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Prisons_Policy_Paper.ashx?dl
=true.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/10/19/justice-cuts-to-be-50-more-than-first-thought/

http://www.howardleague.org/overcrowding/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/05/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11707554

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11723209