Introduction
A criminal justice system has three major elements, viz. the police force, the courts of law, and the correction department (De Bois, 2011). The system is sequential and it starts from the arrest of an offender, pressing charges, standing trial, sentencing, and the eventual punishment. The sentencing and imprisonment stages elicit debates particularly with regard to retributive justice and rehabilitation as approaches to penal justice. The rehabilitation approach aims at changing the behavior of an offender including his or her personality to make them less inclined to criminal activities (De Bois, 2011). It modifies the criminal behavior of offenders and transforms them into law-abiding citizens. Rehabilitation differs from deterrence and incapacitation for deterrence only deters offenders from committing a crime, but it does not eliminate criminal desire, while in incapacitation, the offender’s physical ability to commit a crime is tamed often through incarceration.
The three approaches in turn differ from retribution, as the aim of retribution is not to prevent re-offending but rather it primarily considers the seriousness of the offense (Gray, 2010). Therefore, the retributive idea is not about deterring reoffending in society, retaliation, or vengeance, rather it aims to form a basis of a fair sentencing system. The debate about retributive justice and rehabilitation revolve around two issues; first, which of the two approaches ensures satisfactory punishment, and in practice, which approach can be used in the penal justice system? Based on the pros and cons of both approaches, rehabilitation should be used as a guide in the criminal justice system in the U.S.
The Problem Area
It is worth noting that much of the debate over this topic revolves around the frameworks of these two approaches. The differences in frameworks result in inconsistent valuing of retribution over rehabilitation and vice versa by various agents. According to Markel and Chad (2010), debaters should consider practical reason, meta-ethics, and epistemology to make normative conclusions for such a perception would result in an informed approach when dealing with this issue.
Another problem relates to legislation as the mandate to legislate rests with the government. This aspect often results in valuing one of the approaches over the other without examining the framework. However, from a social obligation standpoint, citizens relinquish their rights to a central authority, which has the sole obligation to protect them through either retribution or rehabilitation (Markel & Chad, 2010). Therefore, the government can implement statutes to uphold either retribution or rehabilitation without consideration of their pros and cons.
Pros and Cons of Rehabilitation
Proponents of rehabilitation advance many affirmative arguments for the process. First, they contend that rehabilitation is a satisfactory penal approach to the offender. The aim of the criminal justice system is to convert an offender into a law-abiding citizen, and thus rehabilitation is the best approach in various ways. Firstly, it modifies the behavior of the offender by transforming him or her into a productive member of the community (Markel & Chad, 2010). Others hold that rehabilitation, unlike retribution, allows offenders to work towards integration into society. By contrast, retribution only hardens offenders through imprisonment. In addition, others contend that retribution is an unfair system and does little to deter crime.
Another advantage of rehabilitation over retribution relates to its benefits to the community. The rehabilitation approach treats offenders as members of the community. A study by Raynor and Gwen (2009) showed that retributive justice is less effective in preventing recidivism among offenders compared to restorative justice. One such rehabilitation program is the Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), which has been quite successful in rehabilitating criminals and preventing reoffending. Therefore, rehabilitation adds more benefits to the community than retribution. Additionally, rehabilitation from an ethical standpoint conforms to just mechanisms of eliminating social ills compared to punishment.
Similarly, there have been negative arguments regarding rehabilitation. The opponents of rehabilitation favor retribution as the best approach for reducing crime and offending. One such argument is that retribution conveys the right messages to the offenders (Markel & Chad, 2010). In other words, by simply putting offenders under rehabilitation programs, they may not be remorseful of their acts. Moreover, a rehabilitative approach may send a wrong message to people who may believe that there is no punishment for offenses. This aspect may in turn lead to increased legal violations and crime, as offenders will not face consequences for their wrongdoing. Additionally, from a moral perspective, by not punishing offenders, unethical actions may become morally justifiable with time.
Another common argument is that retribution is more efficient compared to rehabilitation. The harsh retributive approach discourages reoffending, as offenders remain aware of the consequences of any wrongdoing. In contrast, rehabilitation gives offenders a comfortable environment, with no punishment, and this aspect may not deter reoffending (Markel & Chad, 2010). Moreover, others opine that the retributive approach is one way of ensuring peace in the community, as it serves to satisfy the members of the society. Crime goes against social norms and causes physical and emotional harm to the community. Therefore, by committing a crime, the offender violates the moral law or social contract. In this regard, retributive justice serves to deter reoffending and since criminals are a threat to peace in the community, by failing to punish them, chaos and mistrust may arise leading to gross violation of the law.
Possible Solutions
The rehabilitation approach is different from imprisonment or incarceration as it aims to motivate and support behavior modification or subvert criminal behavior. It is often adopted alongside sanctions such as imprisonment or probation, but it can be provided without any sanction (Markel & Chad, 2010). Rehabilitative approaches that involve cognitive-behavioral therapy have been shown to alter the criminal mindsets or tendencies of many offenders. It focuses on instruction and physical exercises that address issues such as anti-social behavior, feelings of blame, entitlement, and justification (Markel & Chad, 2010). These approaches ensure that the offender is not only remorseful of his or her deeds, but also becomes a law-abiding citizen in the community.
The utilitarian theory states that the main purpose of punishment is to reform the offender (Gray, 2010). For an offender to become reformed, his/her behavior or values must change so that s/he can appreciate that crime is wrong and thus stop engaging in any further criminal activities. The change is different from behavior change due to deterrence or retribution where the offender refrains from crime due to the fear of punishment. A comparable approach is reformation through punishment where the punishment is designed to meet the needs of the perpetrator rather than the crime committed (Gray, 2010). Underlying this notion is the view that criminals should be rehabilitated to reduce recidivism, and thus eliminate crime from the society.
Additionally, from a humanistic perspective, prisoners have rights and any penal system should protect them. This legal statute ensures that citizens become responsible and law-abiding and it protects their self-worth even when under the criminal justice system (Slobogin & Fondacaro, 2009). It facilitates the rehabilitative efforts, as offenders are citizens with equal rights as any member of the society. Further, the legal status encompasses the right to reformation, which is the eventual return to the community and participation in societal matters as a citizen. Prisoners can learn of this right through therapy and education through rehabilitation programs. It requires a safe and conducive reformation environment that does not involve incarceration. In addition, this right is crucial to attaining holistic restoration of offenders and according them full civil rights after serving their sentence.
It is worth noting that rehabilitation does not compromise deterrence as a form of punishment. It only ensures that the punishment is maintained within reasonable levels and it avoids unwanted effects. Strict deterrent policies should not be used to replace rehabilitation, as deterrence is integral to the criminal justice system. In this regard, rehabilitation serves another important role, viz. it ensures that sanctions such as incarceration are within legal limits (Slobogin & Fondacaro, 2009). Without rehabilitation, such sanctions may be abused and result in violation of human rights.
Most people perceive retribution or incarceration as a discriminatory practice especially incarceration of a large number of prisoners from minority communities. After serving their sentence, imprisoned individuals from poor neighborhoods often return unreformed thus causing disruptions of peace and community stability (Slobogin & Fondacaro, 2009). Therefore, retributive justice and incarceration only increases the crime rates in such areas.
Conclusion
The rehabilitation approach is an effective alternative to retribution and incarceration. Even though incarceration continues to be preferred to rehabilitation, studies have revealed that it achieves little deterrent effects. If anything, it increases the rate of reoffending and criminal activities. Rehabilitation in conjunction with imprisonment is a better solution to the problem of high crime rates and reoffending. Its social aspect has many benefits to the offender and the community.
Reference List
De Bois, N. (2011). Retribution and Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice Policy. Justice Quarterly, 2(3), 48-54.
Gray, D. (2010). Punishment as Suffering. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(6), 657-661.
Markel, D., & Chad F. (2010). Bentham on Stilts: The Bare Relevance of Subjectivity to Retributive Justice. California Law Review, 98(3), 941-942.
Raynor, P., & Gwen, R. (2009). Why Help Offenders? Arguments for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy. European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 3-9.
Slobogin, C., & Fondacaro, M. (2009). Juvenile Justice: The Fourth Option. Iowa Law Review, 95(3), 71-78