Crime and Punishment
Should Incarceration Serve As Rehabilitation or Retribution?
Introduction
Sentencing is a process in the criminal justice system where offenders who violate the criminal law are penalized. Trail judges or juries are involved in the process with major goals of sentencing being retribution and rehabilitation. The goals play a significant role in that they reduced future crimes and discourage other criminal from committing crime. However, there is a big problem as it is difficult to reconcile the goals in the different form of punishment. Focusing on retribution and rehabilitation in this research, it is important to evaluate rehabilitation in historical point of view. It is believed that offenders may be influenced to break the law by inherent defects. Thus, to deter crime and void future crime, the best method is to understand the defect whether physical, psychological or social and correct it. In 1960s, rehabilitation was used as a form of punishment in U.S but in 1970s, public raised argument on ineffectiveness of rehabilitation program and shifted to retribution. However, the use rehabilitation had re-merged and it is an inclusive issue in the policy circles. On retribution¸ criminal deserve punishment and punishment is imposed with respect to the degree of offense. Given that the justice system has set goals which should be achieved in the process of sentencing, there is a big problem as these goals and mission are not achieved. The justice system is complicated and the prison management system is flawed. Thus, it is the high time to bring reformations in the post-industrial society by reforming the role of punishment
Historical overview
Focusing on history and crime, the criminal justice system used harsh forms of punishment such as retribution and incapacitation. In the 20th century, the central practice in the justice system was confinement and this undervalued rehabilitation. In other words, criminal justice system justified punishment through retribution and rehabilitation but a greater weight was put on retribution. In the theories of punishment, John Howard introduced the rehabilitation though research and studied report the rehabilitative efforts have not produced effects as expected (Hostettler, 146). On the other hand, retribution proponents argue that offender deserve punishment. Public derive the effectiveness of retribution from Aristotle who believed that punishment is effective in deterring crime. Aristotle also focused on the proportionate reprisal where judges use the proportional approach. Retribution is widely supported as public focus on the idea that punishment is imposed with respect to the degree of the offense (Hostettler, 147). Thus, supporters argue that offenders should be punishment due to what they have done. On the other hand, rehabilitation as a form of punishment focuses on preventing the occurrence of crime in the future. On rehabilitation, programs designed for treatment and training are developed and their effectiveness is achieved as criminals refrain from criminal activities to positive behaviors (Hostettler, 148).
In American society, various forms of punishment are used toward the wrongdoers but the criminal justice mainly follow the ‘just deserts’ rooted from early colonies. Since history, American use confinement, and other nations have adopted the concept of retribution as punishment. In the past, U.S borrowed the concepts of justice administration from England where offenders faced short-term detention before facing the trail (Martin & Lee, 103). Confinement was not a serious form of punishment and for this reason offenders experienced corporal punishment, they were murdered, humiliated, buried alive, and stoned among other ways. In other words, this was a form of retribution and in modern days, America follow the traditional ways of imposing aggressive punishment as they believe that offenders require such kind of punishment to deter crime. A point to note is that in the past, wrongdoers were confined in the ‘house of darkness’ where they suffered from devastating condition characterized by sickness, diseases and death (Martin & Lee, 106). In fact, offenders were treated as indentured servant as they faced harsh penalties associated with corporal punishment. However, the American Revolution led to modification in that England concepts were avoided and news forms of punishment was established. The new form of punishment was long-term confinement which led to positive changed in that offenders were given a chance to repent and change behaviors. However, the Auburn model challenges the new system and supported the need for congregate work, restricted interaction, harsh discipline and tight control (Martin & Lee, 107).
In 20th century, the humanitarian reform raised an issue of concern based on retribution which was associated with ineffective and brutal punishment. Due to this reason, the humanitarian reformers proposed the use of rehabilitation and the policy was implemented. During this period, many States implemented indeterminate sentencing laws and treatment programs to help offender change behaviors and abide to the law (Samaha, 20). However, despite the fact that many believed that rehabilitation would reform criminals, it did not work as expected. In 1970s, reform discussion were rooted from the idea of ‘nothing works’ where States argued that rehabilitation was not an effective from of punishment. The purpose of reformation was to put severe penalties and return to retribution as a form of punishment in deterring the rising crime rates during the period (Samaha, 20). In 1976, California, the well known rehabilitation pioneer, shifted from rehabilitation as well as the indeterminate sentence. The State legislature in California stated that offenders deserve punishment and rehabilitation was a cruel form of punishment. During this period, many liberals supported the use of retribution arguing that criminals deserve punishment to deter crime. In 1980s, retribution and incapacitation become the widely used form of punishment (Samaha, 20).
In the period before the 20th century, the justice system was dominated by the Judeo-Christianity until 20th century. The positive things with the Judeo-Christianity as that justice system adhered to morals and beliefs but in modern world, the justice system is complicated when it comes to inflicting punishment. In western world, the justice system has shifted to longer sentences and harsh punishment and this raises a debate on the effective strategy to use in the justice system (O’Toole, 136). However, Garland, a world’s criminologist reported that in since 20th century, the nature of justice system is changing and the used concepts are rooted from Britain and Europe where crime control was the main goal in sentencing. Harsh punishment has been avoided and rehabilitation has been used since the post-war years. However, there is a big problem in that the debate on retribution is immense as there is an argument that rehabilitation is not effective or in other words ‘nothing works’ (O’Toole, 137). Generally, there are many recurring problems in the justice system and solutions to these problems are not yet implemented. The problem is that the justice system is not progressing due to its failure to achieve the mission and objectives.
Remarkably, the modern justice system has reformed especially the correctional systems in Australia. Today¸ the justice system in Australia is meeting the needs of the society in that punishment is not the central goal of sentencing but rather corrections offer remarkable human services. An important point is that the punitive nature is no more implemented in the new system but what happens is that systems apply the humanitarian approach which put emphasis on rehabilitation (O’Toole, 138). Note that in the past, the retribution was a kind of a coercive approach where offenders faced harsh punishment. Today¸ the justice system has shifted from corporal punishment to humane alternatives which values culture in terms of education, social welfare and more. However, the historical concepts are not fully gone and it is the high time to restructure the justice system in the 21st century in order to have a bright future (O’Toole, 140).
Argument in favor of rehabilitation
Crime and punishments should serve as rehabilitation in that it contributes to positive results not only to the individual but also to the society. Note that the main goal of rehabilitation is to reduce crime in future. Other important point offered by Goralski (1288) is that offenders are compelled to perform a crime by psychological issues. For example, an offender may be suffering from mental problem and the role of rehabilitation is to offer a psychiatric care and vocational training. More importantly, the offender will change behaviors and adhere to the societal norms once he or she enters in the society. As stated above in the research, the criminal system was founded under the Judeo-Christian values though a debate has been raised on failure of rehabilitation to reduce crime. The point is that focusing on the Judeo-Christian values in the past, inmates were allowed to evaluate the behaviors, repent and change behaviors. The main purpose of rehabilitation was based on repentance which is followed by cost maximization which could be used in long-term incarceration. According to Goralski, 1296, rehabilitation is effective method it me eths the needs of both the defendants and the society. Though other forms will meet the need, the point is rehabilitation will solve the root cause of the problem or in other words it aims at solving the cause of crime such as mental problems. In this article, an important point stated is that incapacitation and rehabilitation have similar concepts in that by imposing a sentence, courts tries to prevent future crime. Rehabilitation has valid goals in that the court can determine the lengthy of imprisonment for rehabilitation with an aim of maximizing recidivism. In order to help the defendant and the society, it is important to value deterrence and incapacitation as dominant factors effective for reducing recidivism to (Goralski, 1298).
Raynor and Robinson provide a moral argument for rehabilitation. They state that rehabilitation is the best approach for the benefit of the offender and the society. With respect to the social learning theory, offenders are empowered and they are allowed to make pro-social choices. The rehabilitation programs provide them with problem-solving skills, creativity skills and self-management. The importance of these programs is that they recognizes the root cause of the problems and develops solutions (Raynor & Robinson, 3). On the community, offenders become part of the community and the society creates social bonds which unites the offender with the community members. The author relates rehabilitation with restorative justice by asserting that the restorative procures provides social lesson which offenders apply in life to change behaviors. Rehabilitation is reinforced by ‘strengths-based approaches’ where the offenders are assisted in developing the community through positive contribution (Raynor & Robinson, 8). By implementing the traditional Utilitarian, offenders will become useful members in the society. Effectiveness is achieved by implementing rehabilitative efforts which align with the society interest in social reconstruction and shaping behaviors.
Argument in favor of retribution
Crime and punishment should serve as retribution in that criminals deserve punishment. In this argument, retributivists consider the past choices of the offender and affirm that whether the punishment should reduce crime or not, the offender should be penalized. The point is that offenders are guided to by personal choices to violate the law (WOOD, 303). According to the utilitarian perspective, punishment is justified if it will produce the greatest good to the community. In other words, retribution is justifiable if it will reduce future crime. WOOD states that deterrence justifies punishment by stating that punishment reduces future crime in that individuals who plan to commit crime will be aware of the consequences they will come across. The purpose of retribution in this case is to inform the general community on the consequences associated with crime and the need to refrain. In favor of retribution, it is important to impose severe punishments to a point where the offender will refrain from committing a crime in future (WOOD, 304). The reason why the punishment should be severe is that it will reduce the higher rate of recidivism encountered in the society.
According to Cole, Smith and DeJong, individuals who cause harm should be penalized. In biblical view, the justice system should adhere to the concepts of ‘an eye for an eye’ with respect to the degree of the offense (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 313). In other words, individuals who violate the law should ‘pay the debts’. The author states that the main purpose of retribution is to meet the desire of the community as failure to do that will contribute to negative consequences and social chaos such as community revulsion. A point to note the retribution serves an important purpose in reminding the general public the rules of law. Since the offender harms the sociality, retribution serves as a response for the wrong inflicted (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 313). According to Kant views, human beings have a sole responsibility and thus offenders take personal and moral decisions. For this reason, offenders deserve punishment and in this case, the criminal law serves as an end. This means that punishment is not done to create fair balance to the affected but rather its purpose is to help the offender adhere to the rule of law. Cole, Smith & DeJong, (315) asserts that punishment does not serve as a mean to the end but it is a way of reminding the general public that the system of rules exist.
Personal opinion
According my opinions, I believe that crime and punishment should serve as rehabilitation. The ‘get tough’ approach which is based on retribution does not deter crime but rather it expands the prison system, increases the government budget and recidivism in the society. The reason as to why I support rehabilitation is because; this is an effective approach in preventing future crime and to maximize safety in the community. The policy of indeterminate shapes the behavior of the prisoners by offering psychological treatment. The role of rehabilitation program is to offer behavior therapy which focus on helping the offender change behaviors and engage in positive social activities (Raynor & Robinson, 5). From the research, I have learned that offenders are influenced by psychological problems to commit crime. With this idea, rehabilitation will serve a significant purpose in psychological development through counseling. Rehabilitation program offer therapeutic opportunities where offenders change behaviors for personal and community benefit. Through rehabilitation, research is done to understand the root cause of the problem such as abuse, poverty and other risk factors that contribute to criminal acts. Thus, individual-centered approach, work programs and education can share behaviors (Raynor & Robinson, 5). Thus, I recommend that rather than using punishment as the goal of sentence, rehabilitation is an effective strategy to reduce crime and prevent future occurrences.
Conclusion
From the research, the criminal justice system is grounded from conservative, liberal and critical approaches where conservative and liberal adhere to traditional views while critical approach focus on radical approach. The conservative model put emphasis on retribution as a form of punishment with respect to the degree of the offense. On the other hand, liberal approach put emphasis on rehabilitation where rehabilitation program for education, counseling and training are designed to shape the behaviors. The critical approach put emphasis on the need to consider social condition such as homelessness, poverty and other social issues in the process of justice administration. Both retribution and rehabilitation serve significant purpose in that they prevent future crime through different methodologies. However, rehabilitation is the best approach in that it does not only prevent future crime in the society but it also shapes the behaviors of the offender and help them live a meaningful life.
Work cited
Cole F. George, Smith E. Christopher & DeJong Christina. Criminal Justice in America. Cengage Learning,
2016
Carlson, Peter M, and Judith S. Garrett. Prison and Jail Administration. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett
Learning, LLC, 2013. Internet resource.
Samaha Joel. Criminal Law. Cengage Learning, 2016
Hostettler, John. A History of Criminal Justice in England and Wales. Hook, Hampshire: Waterside Press,
- Print.
O'Toole, Sean. The History of Australian Corrections. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2006. Print.
Martin, Susan E, and Lee B. Sechrest. New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders.
Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1981. Print.
WOOD, DAVID. "Retribution, Crime Reduction and the Justification of Punishment." Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, June 2002, pp. 301-321. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=44441696&site=ehost-live.
Raynor Peter & Robinson Gwen. WHY HELP OFFENDERS? ARGUMENTS FOR REHABILITATION AS A PENAL
STRATEGY. European Journal of Probation University of Bucharest www.ejprob.ro Vol. 1, No. 1,
2009, pp 3 – 20 ISSN: 2066 – 2203. Retrieved from:
http://www.ejprob.ro/uploads_ro/677/PRGR.pdf
