Punishment vs Rehabilitation

The expectations that our society has for the criminal justice system is to punish and rehabilitate individuals who commit crime. Punishment and rehabilitation are also two of the four acknowledged objectives of the criminal justice system, with deterrence and incapacitation being the others. In the United States, punishment has always been the primary goal to achieve when dealing with individuals who commit acts of crime. Many theorists throughout history have argued which is more effective, punishment or rehabilitation. Deterrence is one of the primary goals in the criminal justice system and it is described as special or specific deterrence and general deterrence. The purpose of special/specific deterrence is to instill fear in the offender so that they will not commit future crime. General deterrence is based on punishing offenders to instill fear in society, otherwise known as teaching society a lesson and showing the consequences of committing a crime. Punishment has always been imposed based on the idea that it will deter individuals from committing crime or repeating criminal acts. Incapacitation has been the most common form of punishment; however research demonstrates that recidivism amongst convicted felons following release from prison is as high and that most prison inmates had arrest records and convictions prior to their current offense. Punishment through incarceration is a temporary fix to crime while the offender is confined. The maximum sentence of life in prison and the death penalty has even been debated on whether they are actually deterrence to crime. There are so many underlying factors within the criminal justice system that may contribute to why punishment has not been as effective as anticipated such as the appeal process in death penalty cases and the length of time that an offender can sit on death row. Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Retributive theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself. This has no place in any enlightened society. The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact it is because retribution places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote the safety of the public, and to protect individuals from the victimization of crime Others argue that rehabilitation is a more permanent fix in deterring crime. Rehabilitation through community supervision can have a more lasting effect on individuals and deter them from committing future crime if they learn how to adapt in society by gaining academic or trade skills. These programs can help offenders find employment and secure an important role in the community and give them a sense of being. Therapy is another form of rehabilitation needed to help deter individuals from committing future crime. Some examples of therapy include drug therapy to those offenders addicted to drugs and psychological counseling to those offenders who grew up in an abusive household. Rehabilitation is based on creating a change in the criminal's attitude or resources so that crime is neither a desired nor a necessary activity. When an individual is sentenced to probation, it gives them the opportunity to remain self-supporting within the community and not using the taxpayer or states money to house them in a correctional facility. Prisons should be places where confinement is not easy. Parole should be a period of intense supervision as well as rehabilitative programming, i. e. , educational and vocational training, and counseling. The more defined approach for each phase of the sentence increases the effectiveness of each and also increases the likelihood of successful post prison rehabilitative efforts. By separating punishment from rehabilitation, the effectiveness of rehabilitation is enhanced since punishment is contradictory to rehabilitative activities. In addition, a two-stage sentence system would include a more uniform sentencing structure and would reduce the issue of chance which is inherent in the present parole-granting process. With the expected functions of a prison limited to punishment and incapacitation, sentences for incarcerating felons can then be addressed within terms of deterrence values. Both punishment and rehabilitation are needed if the problem of crime is to be effectively addressed. However, it is not necessary that the prison provide both of these functions simultaneously. A more logical approach involves a two-stage sentence. The prison would provide the incarceration stage and punishment of criminals. After the punitive portion of the sentence, the offender would serve a post-prison sentence of intense supervision which would provide the offender with therapeutic and remedial programs. This separation of the punitive and rehabilitative obligations would allow each segment of a sentence to be more effective, would make shorter punitive sentences more palatable to the public, and, simultaneously, would maximize the use of available cell space and resources. . Victim Impact In many cases, victim rights tend to be overshadowed by the rights of the accused. The courts are obligated to give a defendant their Constitutional rights including the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and due process under the law. Up until recently, victim's rights were never recognized as an important role in the criminal justice system. In the past, ignored throughout trial proceedings and sometimes even forced to stay out of the courtroom as the proceedings went on. These issues have caused many victims to feel neglected and even re-victimized by the courts. On October 30th, 2004, The Crime Victims' Rights Act was signed into law by President Bush to guarantee rights to victims of federal crime. These rights include, to be reasonably protected from the accused offender and to receive reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime or of any public proceeding (De Luca 1991). The majority of society, including victims of crime prefers swift punishment to rehabilitation through community supervision. Public opinion supports the increased use of prisons to give criminals just desserts. When a victim or the victims' family feels that their offender does not receive the appropriate sentence, it causes emotional stress and also financial strain when restitution is not implemented. Community supervision can also benefit victims in certain ways. When an offender is sentenced to intense supervision through probation, they have the ability to pay restitution through employment. Offender Impact Punishment through incarceration has many effects on convicted criminals. Incarceration has many effects on the offender psychological well-being. When an offender is separated from their family, it causes severe depression. Supporters of rehabilitation versus punishment argue that sentencing offenders to incarceration hurt the family structure by contributing to single parenting. They also argue that punishment causes social disorientation, alienation, and also increases the risk of recidivism. When an offender is released from incarceration, they face social isolation, stigmatism, economic and employment challenges. Rehabilitation through community supervision eliminates many of these issues, such as the economic & employment factor. Probation allows offenders to remain with their families, continue working or find employment under close supervision. Social Impact upon Society The social impact of punishment and rehabilitation varies from the increasing costs of correctional facilities to the disruption of families to the fear of criminals released into community. Society's view plays a major role in the criminal justice system. Society's belief's in the â€Å"just desserts† theory has played a role in the courts. The push for mandatory sentencing has even entered political campaigns in response to the public. Getting tough on crime† was the basis behind different mandatory sentencing practices. The increase of correctional facilities is also related to society's impact on punishment versus rehabilitation. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact that punishment has on our country is phenomenal. It has been reported that it costs an average of $30,000 per year to house, feed, clothe, and supervise a prisoner. This figure does not include the costs of construction and other factors. Many rehabilitation programs have been introduced to not only help deter crime, but also to reduce the rising cost of punishment. Privatization of corrections has been also looked at as an effort to reduce the costs of punishment. Many states have also instituted alternatives to incarceration such as â€Å"boot camps† or â€Å"shock camps†. These programs are proven to be less costly than incarceration. The cost of shock incarceration in New York State has been estimated to be $10,000 less per year per prisoner than the cost of traditional incarceration. The use of intensive parole programs has been estimated to save taxpayers an estimated ten to thirteen thousand dollars per year compared to the cost of incarceration (De Luca 1991). Conclusion Punishment and rehabilitation are a major part of the criminal justice system and will be effective in controlling crime if there is a way to incorporate the two factors to work together. Punishing and following up with rehabilitation through community supervision can be the source of helping deter crime. Punishment and community supervision should be based on the type of crime. If the appropriate sentence is issued upon an offender, it can help deter them from future criminal activity. Punishment vs Rehabilitation The expectations that our society has for the criminal justice system is to punish and rehabilitate individuals who commit crime. Punishment and rehabilitation are also two of the four acknowledged objectives of the criminal justice system, with deterrence and incapacitation being the others. In the United States, punishment has always been the primary goal to achieve when dealing with individuals who commit acts of crime. Many theorists throughout history have argued which is more effective, punishment or rehabilitation. Deterrence is one of the primary goals in the criminal justice system and it is described as special or specific deterrence and general deterrence. The purpose of special/specific deterrence is to instill fear in the offender so that they will not commit future crime. General deterrence is based on punishing offenders to instill fear in society, otherwise known as teaching society a lesson and showing the consequences of committing a crime. Punishment has always been imposed based on the idea that it will deter individuals from committing crime or repeating criminal acts. Incapacitation has been the most common form of punishment; however research demonstrates that recidivism amongst convicted felons following release from prison is as high and that most prison inmates had arrest records and convictions prior to their current offense. Punishment through incarceration is a temporary fix to crime while the offender is confined. The maximum sentence of life in prison and the death penalty has even been debated on whether they are actually deterrence to crime. There are so many underlying factors within the criminal justice system that may contribute to why punishment has not been as effective as anticipated such as the appeal process in death penalty cases and the length of time that an offender can sit on death row. Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Retributive theory, on the other hand, sees punishment as an end in itself. This has no place in any enlightened society. The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact it is because retribution places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote the safety of the public, and to protect individuals from the victimization of crime Others argue that rehabilitation is a more permanent fix in deterring crime. Rehabilitation through community supervision can have a more lasting effect on individuals and deter them from committing future crime if they learn how to adapt in society by gaining academic or trade skills. These programs can help offenders find employment and secure an important role in the community and give them a sense of being. Therapy is another form of rehabilitation needed to help deter individuals from committing future crime. Some examples of therapy include drug therapy to those offenders addicted to drugs and psychological counseling to those offenders who grew up in an abusive household. Rehabilitation is based on creating a change in the criminal's attitude or resources so that crime is neither a desired nor a necessary activity. When an individual is sentenced to probation, it gives them the opportunity to remain self-supporting within the community and not using the taxpayer or states money to house them in a correctional facility. Prisons should be places where confinement is not easy. Parole should be a period of intense supervision as well as rehabilitative programming, i. e. , educational and vocational training, and counseling. The more defined approach for each phase of the sentence increases the effectiveness of each and also increases the likelihood of successful post prison rehabilitative efforts. By separating punishment from rehabilitation, the effectiveness of rehabilitation is enhanced since punishment is contradictory to rehabilitative activities. In addition, a two-stage sentence system would include a more uniform sentencing structure and would reduce the issue of chance which is inherent in the present parole-granting process. With the expected functions of a prison limited to punishment and incapacitation, sentences for incarcerating felons can then be addressed within terms of deterrence values. Both punishment and rehabilitation are needed if the problem of crime is to be effectively addressed. However, it is not necessary that the prison provide both of these functions simultaneously. A more logical approach involves a two-stage sentence. The prison would provide the incarceration stage and punishment of criminals. After the punitive portion of the sentence, the offender would serve a post-prison sentence of intense supervision which would provide the offender with therapeutic and remedial programs. This separation of the punitive and rehabilitative obligations would allow each segment of a sentence to be more effective, would make shorter punitive sentences more palatable to the public, and, simultaneously, would maximize the use of available cell space and resources. . Victim Impact In many cases, victim rights tend to be overshadowed by the rights of the accused. The courts are obligated to give a defendant their Constitutional rights including the right to a speedy trial, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, and due process under the law. Up until recently, victim's rights were never recognized as an important role in the criminal justice system. In the past, ignored throughout trial proceedings and sometimes even forced to stay out of the courtroom as the proceedings went on. These issues have caused many victims to feel neglected and even re-victimized by the courts. On October 30th, 2004, The Crime Victims' Rights Act was signed into law by President Bush to guarantee rights to victims of federal crime. These rights include, to be reasonably protected from the accused offender and to receive reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime or of any public proceeding (De Luca 1991). The majority of society, including victims of crime prefers swift punishment to rehabilitation through community supervision. Public opinion supports the increased use of prisons to give criminals just desserts. When a victim or the victims' family feels that their offender does not receive the appropriate sentence, it causes emotional stress and also financial strain when restitution is not implemented. Community supervision can also benefit victims in certain ways. When an offender is sentenced to intense supervision through probation, they have the ability to pay restitution through employment. Offender Impact Punishment through incarceration has many effects on convicted criminals. Incarceration has many effects on the offender psychological well-being. When an offender is separated from their family, it causes severe depression. Supporters of rehabilitation versus punishment argue that sentencing offenders to incarceration hurt the family structure by contributing to single parenting. They also argue that punishment causes social disorientation, alienation, and also increases the risk of recidivism. When an offender is released from incarceration, they face social isolation, stigmatism, economic and employment challenges. Rehabilitation through community supervision eliminates many of these issues, such as the economic & employment factor. Probation allows offenders to remain with their families, continue working or find employment under close supervision. Social Impact upon Society The social impact of punishment and rehabilitation varies from the increasing costs of correctional facilities to the disruption of families to the fear of criminals released into community. Society's view plays a major role in the criminal justice system. Society's belief's in the â€Å"just desserts† theory has played a role in the courts. The push for mandatory sentencing has even entered political campaigns in response to the public. Getting tough on crime† was the basis behind different mandatory sentencing practices. The increase of correctional facilities is also related to society's impact on punishment versus rehabilitation. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact that punishment has on our country is phenomenal. It has been reported that it costs an average of $30,000 per year to house, feed, clothe, and supervise a prisoner. This figure does not include the costs of construction and other factors. Many rehabilitation programs have been introduced to not only help deter crime, but also to reduce the rising cost of punishment. Privatization of corrections has been also looked at as an effort to reduce the costs of punishment. Many states have also instituted alternatives to incarceration such as â€Å"boot camps† or â€Å"shock camps†. These programs are proven to be less costly than incarceration. The cost of shock incarceration in New York State has been estimated to be $10,000 less per year per prisoner than the cost of traditional incarceration. The use of intensive parole programs has been estimated to save taxpayers an estimated ten to thirteen thousand dollars per year compared to the cost of incarceration (De Luca 1991). Conclusion Punishment and rehabilitation are a major part of the criminal justice system and will be effective in controlling crime if there is a way to incorporate the two factors to work together. Punishing and following up with rehabilitation through community supervision can be the source of helping deter crime. Punishment and community supervision should be based on the type of crime. If the appropriate sentence is issued upon an offender, it can help deter them from future criminal activity.