“flashpoints”1, to make policing and the fear of punishments more
efficient, reducing economic spending.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation theories justify punishment by creating reform in the
offender (McDonald, 2019) and making them less willing to commit a
crime (Mayson, 2022).
These theories are justified for societal development as they target the
“root problems of criminal activity” (Ahmed et al., 2025) and provide them
with skills to enter society again after their punishment, with the aim of
rehabilitation to reduce recidivism rates. This is justified as a reduction in
recidivism rates would reduce the costs of maintaining prisons as less
offenders would commit a crime again, reducing the increase of a prison
population. Additionally, the offenders are provided with key skills that
they are lacking in to enter the workforce. This is seen as very important
to Pakistan as one of the most common causes of crime stem from
insufficient skills which can come from economic disparities or unfinished
education (Ahmed et al., 2025). This is also very useful for similar
developing countries that face high inequality rates. This helps societal
development as it also provides a larger workforce for the country through
the newly converted criminals.
Counterarguments
However, introducing rehabilitation methods are costly and it is
quite burdensome to train the workforce in a society that is developing
and does not have sufficient funding. Training such a workforce takes a lot
of time as well. Additionally, many countries’ citizens like Pakistan show
great social stigmas against criminals and often face prejudice when
applying for jobs (Ahmed et al., 2025). This would make education for
offenders in prison not worth the value invested by the country.
1
A place, event, or time at which violence or hostility increases. (Oxford languages) –
This source has not been included in the bibliography as this has just been one definition
and including this would not be beneficial for research but instead for the ease for the
reader.
So, this would make this form of punishment unjustifiable as the country
would not be able to invest in other places. Additionally in places like
Pakistan, there are slow judicial rates which could increase spending and
make it seem unsuitable in the short-term. However, if there is consistent
funding and commitment from the government to change the view of
criminals and create special programmes for them, there will be greater
effectiveness. However, if the punishment is seen to be too lenient, the
deterrent effect of crime is reduced.
Utilitarianism
This form of justification is similar to retributive theories, but
utilitarianism aims to maximise happiness in society and allow “perfect
freedom” (Mill, 1859). This would mean that the citizens in society would
have a larger say in defining the punishments that the offender deserves,
to ensure that everyone in society is still able to have maximum
enjoyment and ability to pursue anything that they want to, that does not
injure the interest of others in society or harm the dependents of the
person committing these actions (Mill, 1859). This provides societal
development as it increases social stability and reduce crime in that way.
Counterarguments
There are no direct effects of this method to show economic or
societal development, other than the fact that there is an increase in
happiness from society, which is not a quantitative measure. Additionally,
if society wanted to maximise or increase happiness by reducing crime
rates, the justice department is allowed to punish an innocent person for
the maximisation of happiness of a larger part of society, so it risks
justifying unfair practices. It only makes sure that the majority of society
is happy, so if 60% of society support a punishment that actively harms
the 40% of the population, it is justified by utilitarianism (Mill, 1859) and
so would not beneficial for societal development as this increases
inequality and unfairness in a society, to counter Mill’s views liberty, which
is why I do not think utilitarianism is good way of justifying punishments.
Conclusion
Punishment can be justified when it contributes to societal
development, through a reduction of crime and an increase in the
workforce. Retributivism ensures fairness and maintains social standing
but is not very flexible, while deterrence and consequentialism can reduce
crime rates but is limited by the high costs and labour intensity.