Discover published sets by community

Rationale: Aims to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering by deterring crime and rehabilitating offenders. Criticisms: Could justify punishing the innocent if it benefits the greater good, and it may ignore the moral value of justice.

Rationale: Allows for the transfer of offenders to jurisdictions where their alleged crimes were committed. Criticisms: Can be complicated by international relations, and legal standards may vary between countries.

Rationale: Intended as an immediate deterrent with a strong physical disincentive. Criticisms: Raises human rights concerns and is seen as barbaric or ineffective by many.

Rationale: Focuses on preventing future crimes by imposing penalties to discourage offenders. Criticisms: Effectiveness can be uncertain, and it may not address the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

Rationale: Allows offenders to give back to society and potentially fosters a sense of community. Criticisms: May not be sufficiently punitive for some crimes and may be seen as too lenient.

Rationale: Limits freedom of movement while allowing some daily life continuity. Criticisms: Effectiveness dependent on individual circumstances, and some see it as too lenient.

Rationale: Designed to handle offenders who are minors separately from adults, often with a stronger focus on rehabilitation. Criticisms: Can disrupt normal development and may not adequately separate dangerous offenders from more minor ones.

Rationale: Emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior through reconciliation. Criticisms: May not be suitable for all types of crime, and reliance on offender's remorse can be problematic.

Rationale: Based on the belief that punishment is justified when deserved, as it morally balances the scales. Criticisms: May lack a rehabilitative focus and can lead to excessively harsh penalties.

Rationale: Addressing underlying psychological issues can be key to preventing re-offending. Criticisms: High costs, varying effectiveness, and the question of compulsion versus consent in therapy.

Rationale: Serves as a deterrent through economic disincentive. Criticisms: Might disproportionately affect the poor and not deter the wealthy as effectively.

Rationale: Removes the ability of the offender to commit further crimes, often through imprisonment. Criticisms: Ignores rehabilitation and can lead to overcrowded prisons.

Rationale: Historically used to remove and isolate offenders from the community. Criticisms: Doesn't guarantee rehabilitation and can violate human rights if not applied justly.

Rationale: Provides a means of controlling and tracking offenders without imprisonment. Criticisms: Privacy concerns and the potential for a 'panopticon'-like surveillance.

Rationale: Public embarrassment can deter crime and create a stigma against repeating the offense. Criticisms: Could violate human dignity and may not be effective in all cultures.

Rationale: Ultimate form of retribution and deterrence for the most severe crimes. Criticisms: Risk of irreversible error, morally contentious, and questionable deterrent effect.

Rationale: Offers an alternative to incarceration with the goal of rehabilitation under supervision. Criticisms: Risk of recidivism if conditions aren't effective, and can be seen as 'soft on crime'.

Rationale: Aims to equip offenders with skills and education for better post-release opportunities. Criticisms: May not be available or appealing to all offenders, and outcomes can vary greatly.

Rationale: Seeks to reform the offender so that they can return to society as a law-abiding citizen. Criticisms: Results can be hard to measure, and some argue it's too lenient on crime.