Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Subjective Punishment

  • Josef MontagEmail author
  • Tomáš Sobek
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_720


A punishment implies some discomfort for its recipient – else it would not punish. Indeed, criminal justice can be viewed as an intricate system that calibrates the severity of punishment – and therefore the amount of the associated discomfort – to individual offenses and offenders. This is done primarily by adjusting the nominal size of punishment, given by the length of a prison sentence, the number of hours of community service, or the amount of a fine. However, the discomfort from a punishment is codetermined by a host of other factors, such as differences across prison facilities, judicial delays, the punishee’s psychological setup, her wealth, luck, family relations, and so on. It is the interaction of the nominal punishment with these subjective factors that determine the total amount of discomfort that a punishment creates in a punishee. “Subjective punishment” (or individualized sentencing) is an umbrella term for a variety of theories that suggest these factors should be accounted for when courts decide on a punishment. Their common denominator is that – in order to maintain the equality of the (total) punitive effect for the same crime – they often imply that different offenders should receive different nominal punishment. This essay aims to provide a broad overview of these theories and their potential implications for criminal justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Åkerlund D, Golsteyn BHH, Grönqvist H, Lindahl L (2016) Time discounting and criminal behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:6160–6165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberini A, Ščasný M (2011) Context and the VSL: evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environ Resour Econ 49:511–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brodersen KH, Wiech K, Lomakina EI, Lin C-s, Buhmann JM, Bingel U, Ploner M, Stephan KE, Tracey I (2012) Decoding the perception of pain from fMRI using multivariate pattern analysis. NeuroImage 63:1162–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronsteen J, Buccafusco C, Masur J (2009) Happiness and punishment. Univ Chic Law Rev 76:1037–1082Google Scholar
  6. Bronsteen J, Buccafusco C, Masur JS (2014) Happiness and the law. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fazel S, Baillargeon J (2011) The health of prisoners. Lancet 377:956–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gray D (2010) Punishment as suffering. Vanderbilt Law Rev 63:1619–1693Google Scholar
  9. Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:1775–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahan DM (1996) What do alternative sanctions mean? Univ Chic Law Rev 63:591–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolber AJ (2009) The subjective experience of punishment. Columbia Law Rev 109:182–236Google Scholar
  12. Listokin Y (2007) Crime and (with a lag) punishment: the implications of discounting for equitable sentencing. Am Crim Law Rev 44:115–140Google Scholar
  13. Markel D, Flanders C (2010) Bentham on stilts: the bare relevance of subjectivity to retributive justice. Calif Law Rev 98:907–988Google Scholar
  14. Massoglia M (2008a) Incarceration as exposure: the prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses. J Health Soc Behav 49:56–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Massoglia M (2008b) Incarceration, health, and racial disparities in health. Law Soc Rev 42:275–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mastrobuoni G, Rivers DA (2016) Criminal discount factors and deterrence. IZA discussion paper no. 9769. Institute for the Study of Labor, BonnGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller G (2009) Brain scans of pain raise questions for the law. Science 323:195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Montag J, Sobek T (2014) Should Paris Hilton receive a lighter prison sentence because she’s rich: an experimental study. Kentucky Law J 103:95–125Google Scholar
  19. Montag J, Tremewan J (2016) Let the punishment fit the criminal: an experimental study. ISE working paper no. 3. International School of Economics, Kazakh-British Technical University, AlmatyGoogle Scholar
  20. Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412Google Scholar
  21. Morse SJ (2011) Neuroscience and the future of personhood and responsibility. In: Rosen J, Wittes B (eds) Constitution 3.0: freedom and technological change. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 113–129Google Scholar
  22. Polinsky AM (2006) The optimal use of fines and imprisonment when wealth is unobservable. J Public Econ 90:823–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1984) The optimal use of fines and imprisonment. J Public Econ 24:89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1991) A note on optimal fines when wealth varies among individuals. Am Econ Rev 81:618–621Google Scholar
  25. Schulz E, Zherdin A, Tiemann L, Plant C, Ploner M (2012) Decoding an individual’s sensitivity to pain from the multivariate analysis of EEG data. Cereb Cortex 22:1118–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shavell S (1987) The optimal use of nonmonetary sanctions as a deterrent. Am Econ Rev 77:584–592Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International School of EconomicsKazakh-British Technical UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan
  2. 2.Faculty of LawCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of LawMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic