Sanctions in Criminology

Sanctions are central to criminology as they represent society’s formal response to crime and deviance. They include a broad range of measures, from fines and community service to imprisonment and the death penalty. Sanctions not only aim to prevent and punish offending but also reflect deeper questions of justice, legitimacy, and social control. This article examines the historical development, functions, types, and contemporary debates surrounding sanctions in criminology.

Historical and Sociological Perspectives

PunishmentThe imposition of a penalty in response to an offense or crime, intended to deter, reform, or incapacitate. has taken many forms throughout history. In early societies, corporal punishment, public shaming, banishment, or execution were common instruments to enforce norms. These were visible and often spectacular, intended not only to punish the offender but also to demonstrate the sovereign’s power.

The rise of the modern state in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries marked a profound cultural shift. Influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and humanism, reformers began to criticise the brutality of corporal punishments and public executions. Thinkers such as Beccaria and Bentham argued for proportionality, rationality, and deterrence, laying the foundations of Classical Criminology. Imprisonment became the central sanction, reflecting both a belief in the possibility of moral reform and the rationalisation of state authority. This institutionalisation of punishment is closely tied to the modern prison as the dominant form of sanction.

Yet the history of sanctions is not linear. The so-called “punitive turn” of the late twentieth century in many Western countries reversed earlier rehabilitative ambitions. Policies of “law and order,” the expansion of mandatory minimum sentences, and “zero tolerance” strategies produced escalating prison populations. In the United States, this shift contributed to the emergence of the “prison-industrial complex”, where incarceration became entangled with economic interests, privatisation, and racialised social control. The “school-to-prison pipeline” further illustrates how punitive logics expanded beyond the criminal justice system, as disciplinary practices in education increasingly channelled disadvantaged and minority youth into the penal system.

These shifts underline that sanctions are not merely technical instruments but are deeply embedded in social and cultural contexts. As David Garland’s Culture of Control demonstrates, the ways in which societies punish reflect broader anxieties, political choices, and welfare-state transformations. Classic sociological theorists provide complementary perspectives: Émile Durkheim interpreted punishment as reinforcing the collective conscience and social solidarity; Max Weber stressed the rational-legal authority that legitimises modern sanctions; and Michel Foucault highlighted how disciplinary techniques extend far beyond prisons into everyday institutions. Together, these perspectives reveal sanctions as historically contingent, culturally shaped, and theoretically contested practices of social control.

Functions of Sanctions

Sanctions serve multiple, often overlapping purposes in the criminal justice system. Retribution, or the idea of “just deserts,” represents punishment as moral balancing, ensuring that offenders receive what they deserve in proportion to their crime. General prevention, by contrast, is directed outward: it seeks to deter the wider public from offending by demonstrating the costs of law-breaking, a principle central to classical deterrence theory. Special prevention focuses on the individual offender, aiming to prevent reoffending either by incapacitating the person through imprisonment or by rehabilitating them through treatment and education. RehabilitationThe process of reintegrating offenders into society and preventing further criminal behavior through education, treatment, and support. has become an important strand in modern penal systems, promising that punishment can transform behaviour rather than merely inflict suffering.

Sanctions also serve symbolic and expressive functions: they reaffirm social norms, restore legitimacy, and demonstrate the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Finally, sanctions act as instruments of social control. As Foucault showed, they are not limited to legal penalties but include a wider set of disciplinary practices that shape behaviour through surveillance, regulation, and normalisation.

Types of Sanctions

Modern criminal justice systems employ a wide variety of sanctions, ranging from monetary penalties to long-term imprisonment. Financial sanctions include fines, restitution payments, and income-adjusted day-fines, which are widely used for less serious offences. Community sanctions such as probation, community service, or electronic monitoring aim to punish and control offenders while avoiding the negative effects of incarceration. Incapacitative sanctions—including imprisonment, preventive detention, and life sentences—remove offenders from society and thereby reduce the immediate risk of reoffending.

Capital punishment, although abolished in most democratic states, persists in some jurisdictions and continues to generate intense debate about deterrence, human rights, and the possibility of wrongful convictions. Civil and administrative sanctions include measures such as driving bans, licence withdrawal, or residency restrictions, often imposed by administrative authorities rather than criminal courts. Preventive sanctions, such as detention orders for “dangerous offenders,” electronic monitoring of terrorism suspects, or preventive detention, illustrate a shift towards pre-emptive forms of social control.

Alternative or hybrid sanctions, including treatment orders, diversion programmes, and restorative justice, provide community-based responses to crime that emphasise repair rather than punishment. In addition, criminologists have highlighted the importance of collateral sanctions—those penalties that extend beyond the formal sentence. Disenfranchisement, employment restrictions, housing exclusion, and the enduring stigma associated with a criminal record can affect offenders long after they have served their time, profoundly shaping reintegration into society.

Further Examples of Sanctioning

Electronic monitoring: The use of ankle bracelets or GPS devices illustrates how technology extends penal control into the private sphere. While often presented as a humane alternative to prison, electronic monitoring can produce new forms of dependency and surveillance, raising concerns about privacy and “net-widening,” as it may subject individuals to control who might not otherwise have been incarcerated.

Public shaming and trial by media: Sanctions are not only legal or institutional but can also be enacted by the public sphere. High-profile cases, such as the international media coverage of Amanda Knox, demonstrate how suspects can be punished long before formal verdicts. Public opinion, sensational reporting, and online campaigns can stigmatise individuals, restrict their life chances, and undermine the principle of due process.

Shaming sanctions: Criminologist John Braithwaite distinguished between disintegrative shaming, which stigmatises offenders and excludes them, and reintegrative shaming, which communicates disapproval but encourages reintegration. This highlights how sanctions can be designed either to ostracise or to support rehabilitation.

Naming and shaming policies: In some jurisdictions, the state itself employs publicity as a sanction, such as sex offender registries or online publication of tax offenders. These practices blur the line between formal punishment and social exposure.

Contemporary Debates

Debates around sanctions in criminology focus on their effectiveness, fairness, and broader consequences. One central controversy opposes deterrence and rehabilitation: while harsh sanctions are often justified as necessary to deter crime, empirical evidence suggests that rehabilitation may be more effective in reducing long-term recidivism. Human rights concerns are another major theme, as practices such as the death penalty, life without parole, or degrading prison conditions remain contested across the globe.

Global variation is striking: while the United States exemplifies a punitive model of mass incarceration, Scandinavian countries emphasise rehabilitation, proportionality, and normalisation, producing much lower rates of imprisonment. Scholars also warn of net-widening, where community sanctions or electronic monitoring, instead of replacing imprisonment, extend penal control to individuals who might not otherwise have been punished.

Intersectional critiques point out that sanctions disproportionately affect minorities, migrants, the poor, and other vulnerable groups, raising fundamental questions about legitimacy, equality, and justice. Beyond this, two further developments are central today: the persistence of gang dynamics and prison subcultures, which can transform prisons into schools of crime rather than places of rehabilitation, and the ageing of prison populations, which raises new challenges around healthcare, costs, and the ethics of long-term incapacitation.

Conclusion

Sanctions are not natural or inevitable responses to crime but socially constructed practices that embody power relations, cultural values, and political choices. They balance competing aims: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and social order. In contemporary criminology, the challenge is to critically assess whether sanctions actually achieve justice, protect society, and respect human dignity. Future debates will likely revolve around how to reduce the harms of punishment while maintaining legitimacy, security, and fairness in an increasingly complex and diverse world.

Literature

• Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
• Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press.
• Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
• Durkheim, É. (1982). The rules of sociological method (S. Lukes, Ed.; W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)
• Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
• Indermaur, D. (2001). Offender treatment programs: Can they be effective? Australian Institute of Criminology Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (208), 1–6.
• Mathiesen, T. (1974). The politics of abolition. Martin Robertson.
• Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
• Sparks, R., & Bottoms, A. E. (1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/591622
• Tonry, M. (2006). Crime and justice: A review of research, Vol. 34. The future of imprisonment. University of Chicago Press.
• Uggen, C., van der Geest, V., & McNeill, F. (2019). The life course and desistance from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Oxford handbook on crime and criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
• von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and sanctions. Oxford University Press.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)