Criminal legal sanctions and the false dichotomy between deterrence and rehabilitation: Implications for sentencing research and policy

Objectives: Criminal justice policy has historically swung between punitive, deterrence-focused and rehabilitation-focused sentencing. Research has reinforced the notion that the two constitute polar ends of a spectrum. This paper seeks to contribute to sentencing scholarship aimed at understanding the nature and effects of legal sanctions. Specifically, we argue that the deterrence-rehabilitation dichotomy is false and that recognizing how the two are distinct yet intertwined both theoretically and, in many cases, in practice, has substantial relevance for accurate interpretation of research and for designing and evaluating policy. Methods: We detail how all legal sanctions entail deterrence and rehabilitation logics. This includes describing the theoretical connections between the two and the potential for each in practice to activate mechanisms associated with the other. Next, we extend the argument to highlight critical challenges in interpreting research on deterrence and rehabilitation. Then we present implications for research and policy that flow from more precise theoretical understanding of the causal logic of sanctions. Results: Interpretations of research, as well as policy, that assume an absolute difference between deterrence and rehabilitation may generate incorrect conclusions about explanations for sanction effects and implications for theory and policy. Conclusions: Greater precision is needed in describing legal sanctions and the mechanisms through which they affect criminal behavior. Doing so can improve the interpretability of research and inform the design of criminal legal sanctions to more effectively reduce offending. • Deterrence and rehabilitative causal mechanisms overlap in legal sanctions. • This overlap complicates accurate interpretation of study results. • Describing legal sanctions' causal logic can improve research and policy