Against Proportional Punishment

By Kolber, Adam J. | Vanderbilt Law Review, May 2013 | Go to article overview

Against Proportional Punishment


Kolber, Adam J., Vanderbilt Law Review


INTRODUCTION

Many criminal defendants are held in detention while they await trial. Though conditions in pretrial detention are much like those in prison, detention is technically not punishment. Since detainees are merely accused of crimes, they are presumed innocent.1 Their detention is not intended to punish them, and so, the Supreme Court has said, it is not punishment at all.2 Rather, detention is a means of promoting public safety, reducing witness intimidation, and preventing people accused of crimes from fleeing before trial.

Nevertheless, defendants who are convicted generally receive credit at sentencing for time served in pretrial detention.3 An offender who deserves two years of incarceration as punishment will have his sentence cut in half if he has already spent one year in detention. Such offsets appear to conflict with principles of proportional punishment. Taken literally, giving credit for time served leads us to systematically underpunish detainees by reducing their punishment by time spent unpunished. To unlock the mystery of credit for time served, defenders of proportionality need to square the widely held view that offenders should receive credit for time served with the widely held view that punishment should be proportional to blameworthiness.

One seemingly plausible solution that I suggest in Part I is to modify our understanding of proportionality. Courts and legal scholars sometimes draw too sharp of a distinction between formal punishment and other harms inflicted by the state. On more careful reflection, however, what they really seem to care about is not proportional punishment but proportional "harsh treatment," which includes not only the suffering and deprivation of formal punishment but also the suffering and deprivation of "punishment look-alikes," like pretrial detention. Even though pretrial detention is technically not punishment, it is harsh treatment, and most people are inclined to give offenders credit for it.

Shifting to proportional harsh treatment, however, solves one problem at the expense of several others. As I argue in Part II, once we understand punishment severity in terms of harsh treatment rather than a more neatly bordered but inaccurate construct like days in prison, we must consider the actual amount of harsh treatment we inflict.4 The amount will vary based on (1) the particular facilities to which inmates are assigned, (2) how inmates experience those facilities, (3) how confinement harms them relative to their unpunished baselines, and (4) how they are affected by the collateral consequences of incarceration for decades to come. Even if these harms do not constitute punishment, they contribute to sentence severity as surely as pretrial detention does.

While we could try to salvage proportional harsh treatment by taking all of this variation into account, I argue in Part III that when we look closely at proportional harsh treatment, it becomes much less appealing and consequentialist punishment theories that do not depend on proportionality look comparatively more appealing. Even though retributivist notions of proportionality are central to sentencing systems around the world and are widely thought to undergird core notions of criminal justice, proportionality has profoundly counterintuitive implications.

I. THE MYSTERY OF CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED

In this Part, I describe what I mean by proportional punishment and how it conflicts with giving offenders credit for time served. I then propose five responses proportionalists might offer to reconcile the two policies. I argue that the best reconciliation requires us to replace proportional punishment with the more general concept of proportional harsh treatment.

A. Background on the Meaning of Punishment

In United States v. Salerno,5 the Supreme Court upheld the federal statute that provides for pretrial detention of dangerous offenders.6 Crucial to the Court's determination was its view that Congress intended pretrial detention to be "regulatory" rather than "punitive. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Against Proportional Punishment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.