Which of the following is not a justification for punishment?

Redress is not considered a traditional justification for punishment within the correctional framework. Typically, justifications for punishment include retribution, deterrence, and expiration or atonement, all of which focus on addressing the crime and its impact on society and the individual offender.

Retribution serves as a justification based on the principle that offenders deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing. It reflects a moral stance that seeks to balance the scales of justice by ensuring that the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. Deterrence is aimed at preventing future crimes by making an example of offenders, thereby discouraging others from engaging in similar behavior. Expiration or atonement involves the idea that punishment serves a rehabilitative purpose, allowing offenders to pay for their crimes and come to terms with their actions, often through a process of reflection and remorse.

In contrast, redress, which typically refers to compensating victims or correcting wrongs, does not serve as a direct justification for punitive measures in the correctional system. While redress focuses on repairing harm and can be a part of restorative justice practices, it does not inherently align with the primary goals of punishment within traditional correctional paradigms. Thus, identifying redress as the option that does not fit within