The relationship between the purposes of sentencing and imprisonment can be variously conceptualized. The paper theorizes and contrasts two models of sentencing and prison relations—continuity and separation. The continuity model assumes continuity between sentencing and prison regime. Under this model, all sentencing purposes may impact prison regime. The separation model distinguishes between the purposes of sentencing and of imprisonment. Under the separation model, the retributive element of imprisonment is completely fulfilled by depriving the prisoner of liberty. Retributive considerations can affect only the duration of the sentence, while prison regime is determined solely according to rehabilitation/risk and prison security considerations. The paper problematizes the separation model as it suffers from two difficulties: (a) the idea that the retributive element of imprisonment is fully fulfilled by depriving the prisoner’s liberty undermines the “hard treatment” element of the retributive punishment. Relatedly, since no prison regime can deprive a person solely of liberty no custodial sentence can be justified; (b) given the inability to isolate the denial of liberty as the only deprivation of imprisonment, the separation model also encourages judges to underestimate and feel less responsible for the full meaning of their decision to imprison. Finally, the paper will argue that liberal prison conditions may (and should) be achieved even when seeing retribution as relevant for prison life and will offer possible ways to do so.

量刑目的和监禁之间的关系可以有不同的概念。这篇论文对量刑和监狱关系的两种模式——连续性和分离性——进行了理论化和对比。连续性模型假设量刑和监狱制度之间具有连续性。在这种模式下，所有量刑目的都可能影响监狱制度。分居模式区分了量刑和监禁的目的。在分居模式下，监禁的报应要素完全通过剥夺囚犯的自由来实现。惩罚性考虑仅会影响刑期，而监狱制度仅根据康复/风险和监狱安全考虑来确定。该论文对分离模型提出了问题，因为它存在两个困难：(a) 通过剥夺囚犯的自由来充分满足监禁的惩罚性要素的想法破坏了惩罚性惩罚的“严酷待遇”要素。与此相关的是，由于任何监狱制度都不能单独剥夺一个人的自由，因此监禁刑罚是不合理的；(b) 鉴于无法将剥夺自由孤立为剥夺监禁的唯一原因，分居模式还鼓励法官低估其监禁决定的全部意义，并对其承担较少的责任。最后，本文将论证即使在将报复视为与监狱生活相关的情况下，也可以（并且应该）实现宽松的监狱条件，并将提供可能的方法来实现。