Abstract
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 via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Åkerlund D, Golsteyn BHH, Grönqvist H, Lindahl L (2016) Time discounting and criminal behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:6160–6165
Alberini A, Ščasný M (2011) Context and the VSL: evidence from a stated preference study in Italy and the Czech Republic. Environ Resour Econ 49:511–538
Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217
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 63:1162–1170
Bronsteen J, Buccafusco C, Masur J (2009) Happiness and punishment. Univ Chic Law Rev 76:1037–1082
Bronsteen J, Buccafusco C, Masur JS (2014) Happiness and the law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Fazel S, Baillargeon J (2011) The health of prisoners. Lancet 377:956–965
Gray D (2010) Punishment as suffering. Vanderbilt Law Rev 63:1619–1693
Greene J, Cohen J (2004) For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:1775–1785
Kahan DM (1996) What do alternative sanctions mean? Univ Chic Law Rev 63:591–653
Kolber AJ (2009) The subjective experience of punishment. Columbia Law Rev 109:182–236
Listokin Y (2007) Crime and (with a lag) punishment: the implications of discounting for equitable sentencing. Am Crim Law Rev 44:115–140
Markel D, Flanders C (2010) Bentham on stilts: the bare relevance of subjectivity to retributive justice. Calif Law Rev 98:907–988
Massoglia M (2008a) Incarceration as exposure: the prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses. J Health Soc Behav 49:56–71
Massoglia M (2008b) Incarceration, health, and racial disparities in health. Law Soc Rev 42:275–306
Mastrobuoni G, Rivers DA (2016) Criminal discount factors and deterrence. IZA discussion paper no. 9769. Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn
Miller G (2009) Brain scans of pain raise questions for the law. Science 323:195
Montag J, Sobek T (2014) Should Paris Hilton receive a lighter prison sentence because she’s rich: an experimental study. Kentucky Law J 103:95–125
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, Almaty
Morse SJ (2006) Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: a diagnostic note. Ohio State J Crim Law 3:397–412
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 113–129
Polinsky AM (2006) The optimal use of fines and imprisonment when wealth is unobservable. J Public Econ 90:823–835
Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1984) The optimal use of fines and imprisonment. J Public Econ 24:89–99.
Polinsky AM, Shavell S (1991) A note on optimal fines when wealth varies among individuals. Am Econ Rev 81:618–621
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 22:1118–1123
Shavell S (1987) The optimal use of nonmonetary sanctions as a deterrent. Am Econ Rev 77:584–592
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Montag, J., Sobek, T. (2019). Subjective Punishment. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_720
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_720
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7752-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7753-2
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences