Rehabilitation of Offenders Instead of Punishment: Less Eligibility Argument

This essay explores the 'less eligibility' argument and examines the significant influence that society and the state have on the rehabilitation of offenders. It also analyzes the necessity of rehabilitation and the equitable distribution of resources among the impoverished and offenders within a community.

The Stigma of Offending

Offenders often face lifelong social stigma, which persists regardless of any moral re-evaluation of their past actions. Society tends to view offenders through a lens of negativity and prejudice, leading to the flourishing of arguments like 'less eligibility.' According to Jeremy Bentham, the principle of less eligibility posits that the conditions of a convict should not be more favorable than those of the poorest citizens living in innocence and liberty. This perspective highlights the need to care for those in dire circumstances who, despite having the potential to commit crimes, choose not to. However, adhering to Bentham’s principle could result in prison conditions that are inhumane, pushing inmates into starvation and suffering worse than those in the most impoverished neighborhoods.

The Purpose of Rehabilitation

This raises the question: why should we focus on rehabilitating offenders instead of simply imprisoning anyone who exhibits law-breaking behavior? Historically, many have argued that rehabilitation is essential to the penal system because of its potential to reduce reoffending. Rehabilitation not only aims to heal damaged relationships but also seeks to ensure community safety. According to Rotman, society has a duty to provide rehabilitation to mitigate the harm inflicted by punishments, like imprisonment, on offenders. We have an obligation to offer each offender the necessary resources for reintegration into society as productive citizens. By adopting a strength-based and restorative approach, we can focus on positive attributes, thereby transforming offenders into law-abiding members who contribute positively to society.

Research supports the notion that personal and social circumstances often drive individuals to commit crimes, indicating that many offenders feel helpless and believe they have no other choices. For rehabilitation to be effective, society must support reform programs that advocate for a more equitable distribution of resources. Offenders often come from deprived neighborhoods characterized by high unemployment and low education levels. As Bobby Cummines aptly puts it, “a society that does not care is a society that you do not care about.” When the state neglects those in need of support, the consequences can be more tragic than anticipated.

Critiques of Rehabilitation

Criticism surrounding rehabilitation can largely be traced back to Martinson’s article, which concluded that “nothing works” in terms of reducing recidivism through rehabilitative efforts. Martinson argued that psychotherapy and other rehabilitation methods could not significantly alter the tendency of offenders to engage in criminal behavior. Early rehabilitation efforts were based on the 'medical model,' which treated offending as a flaw that required correction. This model, rooted in positivist criminology, viewed offenders as passive agents lacking choice, attributing their criminal behavior to external factors beyond their control.

Critics of the medical model argue that it is fundamentally flawed to treat crime like an illness. According to Balch, illness occurs randomly and unexpectedly, while crime is a conscious choice. The medical model was often seen as a waste of resources, as it sought physical causes of crime without substantial evidence to support such claims. Furthermore, treatments under this model frequently involved dehumanizing practices, such as psychosurgery and electric shock therapy.

Approaches to Rehabilitation

The question remains: how can we make rehabilitation work? Rotman identifies two contrasting approaches: the authoritarian model, which relies on coercion and intimidation to ensure compliance, and the more humanistic anthropocentric model, which prioritizes the individual's needs and promotes voluntary participation. A successful rehabilitation system would likely incorporate elements from both models, maintaining strictness while also demonstrating understanding and compassion.

If rehabilitation were to be redesigned as a therapeutic system, the focus would shift from punishment to addressing individuals' needs. This approach could provide essential assistance to those who have never had the opportunity to develop meaningful social connections. As Faulkner notes, the public often views prisoners as individuals who have forfeited their citizenship rights. However, many theorists argue for rehabilitation as a fundamental right, emphasizing that offenders are still part of the community and deserve the opportunity for restoration.

Future Directions for Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is undergoing a transformation, with probation increasingly viewed as a form of social service aimed at preventing further crime through the adjustment of offenders. During the 1950s and 60s, social workers began to be recognized as professionals, shifting their focus toward individual needs and relationships. Current programs aim to empower offenders by providing the resources and skills necessary to live lawfully.

Such programs should be implemented within a broader social policy context that ensures basic needs are met for all community members, not just offenders. For instance, the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, developed by McGuire and Priestly, focuses on assessing an offender's risk of reoffending, identifying criminogenic needs, and providing cognitive-behavioral treatments.

Conclusion

To successfully integrate rehabilitation into the penal system, public awareness of its potential benefits is crucial. Research must continue to evaluate rehabilitative programs' effectiveness. Society should adopt more humane principles of punishment, showing compassion towards the factors that lead individuals to crime. A rehabilitative system must address structural inequalities while recognizing offenders as citizens in need of help rather than burdens. Differentiation among offenders is vital, as those who offend due to social and economic deprivation require different support than high-risk offenders. Such changes will be challenging to implement, as public opinion often favors punitive measures over rehabilitative approaches.

References:

• Bobby Cummines. (Year). Title of the work.
• Jeremy Bentham. (Year). Title of the work.
• Martin Martinson. (Year). Title of the work.
• McGuire, J., & Priestly, P. (Year). Title of the work.
• Faulkner, W. (Year). Title of the work.
• Rotman, E. (Year). Title of the work.