Editing Punishment (section)

=== Incapacitation ===
{{Main|Incapacitation (penology)}}
Incapacitation as a justification of punishment<ref name=justify/> refers to the offender's ability to commit further offences being removed. Imprisonment separates offenders from the community, for example, Australia was a dumping ground for early British criminals. This was their way of removing or reducing the offenders ability to carry out certain crimes. The death penalty does this in a permanent (and irrevocable) way. In some societies, people who stole have been punished by having their hands amputated.

Crewe<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Crewe |first1=D |title=Punitiveness and Resentment |journal=Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology |date=2021 |issue=13 |pages=64–91}}</ref> however, has pointed out that for incapacitation of an offender to work, it must be the case that the offender would have committed a crime had they not been restricted in this way. '''Should the putative offender not be going to commit further crimes, then they have not been incapacitated'''. The more heinous crimes such as murders have the lowest levels of recidivism and hence are the least likely offences to be subject to incapacitative effects. Antisocial behaviour and the like display high levels of recidivism and hence are the kind of crimes most susceptible to incapacitative effects. It is shown by life-course studies<ref>{{cite book |last1=Carlson |first1=C. |last2=Sarnecki |first2=J |title=An Introduction to Life-Course Criminology |date=2015 |publisher=Sage |location=London}}</ref> that long sentences for burglaries amongst offenders in their late teens and early twenties fail to incapacitate when the natural reduction in offending due to ageing is taken into account: the longer the sentence, in these cases, the less the incapacitative effect.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Crewe |first1=D. |title=Punitiveness and Resentment |journal=Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology |date=2021 |issue=13 |pages=64–91}}</ref>