The Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Vs Harsh Punishment

The question of the effectiveness of rehabilitation vs harsh punishment has been widely debated. While dealing with the crime. There are lots of debates that follow the topic of what is more suitable for the inmates’ punishment or rehabilitation because both the concepts are apart from each other. Crime is obviously the most damaging factor within society which affects the people. The purpose of criminal justice is to reduce the crimes in the society. Stopping crime can be possible by the way of deliverance, but the real issue is how to change the corrupt mindset of a person who has adopted an unlawful behaviour. It is generally understood that harsh punishment is an inhumane way while dealing with criminals as they might not get another chance.

Punishment VS Rehabilitation in Achieving a Harmless Solution

This essay determines to reveal the causes of how the rehabilitation process is more effective than harsh punishment in achieving a harmless condition. There are good reasons to believe that rehabilitation is the most valuable justification for punishment, for it alone promotes the humanising belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Taxman and Rudes (2011:236) state that ‘offenders are more likely to change their behaviour in response to the actions of the correctional agency than merely through the stated sentencing goals’. The rehabilitation ideal alone conveys the message that the state has an obligation to help those who fall short of the standards of behaviour it has set. These people are often those with the greatest social disadvantages that have constrained them to a life in crime in the first place. The rehabilitation ideal does not ignore society and the victim. In fact, it is because it places such great value on their rights that it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending and reduce crime, it seeks constructively to promote society’s right to safety and to protect individuals from the victimisation of crime.

Moreover, rehabilitation has another important value: it recognises the reality of social inequality. It is said that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain and lead to criminality. It is said that a guide to the sentencing decision of judges, having rehabilitation as a goal provides the most flexible and sensible direction. Additionally, rehabilitation as a guide sentencers can give offenders who have learnt from his mistakes, the chance to receive a lighter sentence. Killiars and villetaz (2008: 29) claim ‘based on a systematic review of some 23 (out of 300 originally located) studies, it is concluded that most studies show lower rates of re-offending following a non- custodial compared to a custodial sanction’. Rehabilitation is not only important when the court is deciding in the sentence, it is also important when it comes to actually carry out the punishment. The role of the criminal justice system does not end with the pronouncement of a sentence, but it is the duty of the state and society as well to help him change. The offenders must be provided with meaningful skills training with behavioural- treatment programs. Rehabilitation targeted on mentally preparing offenders to adjust in society rather harsh punishment meant to teach them a lesson. It is believed that rehabilitation will show them the errors of their way and help them to become a useful part of society.

There are some people who disagree with the above claims and would argue that rehabilitation is not as effective as harsh punishment. Tullock (1974: 103) claims ‘most economists who give serious thought to the problems of the crime immediately conclude that punishment will indeed deter crime’(Tullock,1974). Tullock claims the reasoning as to why most economists believe this is ‘if you increase the cost of something, less will be consumed. Thus, if you increase the cost of committing a crime, there will be fewer crimes.’ Furthermore, it is argued that crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstances, it is certainly not the product of coincidence. It is the result of choices made by the individual and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate society’s rules. Retributivism advocates that more serious crime should be punished more seriously, because of the more severe the violation of our rules. They believed that retribution has more power to change a person than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will show them the error of their way and how to make it better, but punishment will make them realise their wrongdoings can cause them, even more, to not try and change or break laws.

Furthermore, rehabilitation does not work in case of serious crimes. Injustice is done if tried to correct the offender. The suffering of the victim’s family will increase and public trust in the criminal justice system will be reduced. Retributive theories are backwards-looking and justify punishment in terms of ‘its intrinsic justice as a response to crime’.

Offenders are held accountable for their crime by imposing sanctions on them that are roughly equivalent in harm to those inflicted on their victims. The state and its designated agents are ethically obligated to punish offenders simply because of the nature of the wrongful act and not for any other reasons such as the beneficial consequences of doing so (Drivers, 2006). It is also argued that hard treatment such as imprisonment is obligatory on occasions because of the wrongs they have committed and appropriately expresses social disapproval. ‘while most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long-term imprisonment on homicide rates, in the mid-1970s’.

Helpful Purposes of the Concept of Rehabilitation

Although this view may seem convincing, in reality, the concept of rehabilitation rests on assumption that criminal behaviour is caused by some factors. It could not be denied that they make choices to break the law. It is said that most of the offenders are not criminal by birth or by choice, if their involvement in crime is caused by various factors, then re-offending can be reduced by correctional measures. The purpose of rehabilitation is to correct the offender so that he is made capable of returning to society and functioning as a law-abiding member of the community. Rehabilitation was viewed as a human alternative to retribution and deterrence. Although rehabilitation was widely criticised earlier, it gained greater acceptance also it is demonstrated that a carefully implemented rehabilitation programme could reduce recidivism. Societies become more civilised; they should outgrow the desire for revenge because retribution philosophy is outdated. It is also argued that punishing criminals just because they have acted inappropriately does not underlying issues that may have led to crime in the first place. Some offenders need treatment rather than punishment, without treatment, the cycle of crime will continue unabated. Generally, harsh punishments are considered by many to be an inhuman way in dealing with criminals as they are not being given a second chance. It can be said that rehabilitation is a more human strategy that allows criminals the opportunity to understand where they were wrong so they can learn from their mistakes, correct them and become a useful member of society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said in the light of above arguments that the discussion put forward claiming rehabilitation would be more effective than harsh punishment, but it is a need for the criminals that they learn from their mistakes. Primarily it was focused on the benefits of both rehabilitation and harsh punishment. Rehabilitation is a chance given to criminals, to correct themselves, learn from their mistakes. Therefore, the purpose of rehabilitation is to put the criminals back to society to live a healthy and productive life after prison. Punishment works some of the time, but rehabilitation works most of the time, punishment means continuing to return to prison, which is not healthy for the general welfare. Rehabilitation means a corrected and purposeful person back in society.  

Works Cited

1. Taxman, F. S., & Rudes, D. S. (2011). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 57(2), 222-241.
2. Killias, M., & Villetaz, M. (2008). Rehabilitation effects on recidivism: A review of the literature. In R. A. Wright & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment (pp. 29-53). Oxford University Press.
3. Tullock, G. (1974). The social dilemma of punishment. The Journal of Legal Studies, 3(1), 101-114.
4. Drivers, M. (2006). Retributivism, desert, and the problematic nature of punishment. Ratio Juris, 19(3), 281-299.
5. McNeill, F., & Weaver, B. (2010). Changing lives? Desistance research and offender management. Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.
6. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109-207). National Institute of Justice.
7. Palmer, T. (2013). Toward an integrative theoretical framework of desistance and rehabilitation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 62-81.
8. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755.
9. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-607.
10. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 22-29.