| dc.description.abstract | This thesis is an enquiry into why we punish. Though acknowledging that official legitimisation of punishment includes both absolute and relative theories of punishment, it is the starting point of this thesis that the retributivist, absolute theories are somewhat down-played as the sole reason for formal punishment. It is therefore the main objective of this thesis to seek other reasonings through qualitative research interviews. The interviews have been carried out among two groups of participants; those with some connection to punishment, and those who have been randomly picked amongst passers-by. Invariably the interviews have been of very different length and character, but the goal has been to ask one single question, to a number of people, leaving all the defining powers to them. The question has been “Why do we punish?”. The answers have been many. Though utilitarian deterrence is mentioned across the board from the two participant groups in this thesis, many other reasons are given equal, if not more, importance by respondents. Some such reasons pertain to our individual sensibilities and motivations of a personal nature, related to our agency and our sentiments. Some pertain to our cultural structures, and the way in which we can understand the retributive or restorative possibilities in our legal structure. Some answers can be classified as societal, and as fulfilling certain functions for society in a far greater extent than it might do for either the offender or the victim. Within this delineation of society, structure and agent, several rationalities are uncovered and include portraying punishment as a means to an objective, as pure revenge, blatant retribution or even a way of punishing the poor and already misfortunate. In addition, there are some responses that in and of themselves illustrate the manifest and latent functions of punishment. Many depicted harms caused by the way we punish, and these responses put reasons for punishment in a critical light, challenging the fact whether the positive consequences outweigh the negative. The findings have been presented in quotes throughout the thesis. In an effort to analyse and understand the various reasonings behind punishment, all the findings are coupled with both criminological concepts and theory, as well as being placed in juxtaposition to possible implications derived from criminology and sociology of law. One of the recurring themes in this thesis is the contrast of understanding and condemning, this has been coupled with different ways of analysing crime and deviance control, as well as scrutinising how punishment is being utilised as a means to change behaviour that is not illegal, but merely unwanted. The findings have been presented in quotes throughout the thesis. In an effort to analyse and understand the various reasonings behind punishment, all the findings are coupled with both criminological concepts and theory, as well as being placed in juxtaposition to possible implications, derived from criminology and sociology of law. One of the recurring themes in this thesis is the contrast of understanding and condemning, this has been coupled with different ways of analysing crime and deviance control. As well as scrutinising how punishment is utilised as a means to change behaviour that is not illegal, but merely unwanted, reflecting trends of punitiveness, neo-liberalism and risk-assessment. Toward the end of the thesis I propose a suggestion to how it might be that we punish in spite of these implications, ramifications and harms. For this I utilise theory that originally was intended to understand and analyse deviant and antisocial behaviour in criminals. | eng |