Aims of sentencing - what sentences are trying to achieve — FAQ

No, this is a common misconception. The aims often conflict. For example, a long prison sentence for incapacitation may hinder rehabilitation. Courts must prioritise which aim(s) are most important for the specific offence and offender, as guided by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A single sentence may combine aims, such as a community order with unpaid work (reparation) and a drug treatment requirement (rehabilitation).

While related, they are distinct in law. Revenge is a personal, emotional response. Retribution is an official, state-sanctioned action based on the principle of proportionality ('just deserts'). The punishment should fit the crime, not the emotional desire for vengeance. It is administered impartially by the judicial system according to established sentencing guidelines, ensuring fairness and consistency.

The effectiveness of deterrence is highly debated. Evidence is mixed. Many crimes are not rational, pre-planned acts but are committed impulsively, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or due to emotional distress. High reoffending rates, especially for those serving short sentences, suggest individual deterrence is often unsuccessful. For general deterrence to work, potential offenders must know the penalties and believe they are likely to be caught, which is not always the case.

The Sentencing Council creates detailed guidelines for specific offences. These guidelines provide a step-by-step structure for sentencing, starting with an assessment of the crime's seriousness (culpability and harm) to find a 'starting point' sentence. This directly applies the retributive principle of proportionality. The guidelines then instruct the judge to adjust the sentence based on aggravating and mitigating factors, allowing for aims like rehabilitation or public protection to be considered in a consistent and transparent way.