Prison is taken as a remand centre, detention centre or a place for punishment to people found guilty by the state. The history of prison started since the ancient civilization of Rome and it has also been mentioned in other historical texts as well. Prison has been traditionally designed and formulated in order to maintain law and order in the society. The overall purpose of prison is to serve justice for victims by penalizing the culprit and rehabilitate the offender through a sequential pattern in order to reduce recidivism. However, various reasons as the models of punishment, utilitarian approaches and fundamentals of rehabilitation vary according to the system of an individual state and its government. The essay shall focus on different attributions engaged with punishment and reformation through rehabilitation with different supporting ideas concluding with some comparisons, evaluations and ideas on these various models.
Different countries have gone through various methods of punishment from barbaric and tyrannical ways towards more liberal techniques of punishment and it is regarded as one of the predominant factors in criminal justice. Having a brief look at the background on retributivism, it has been regarded a provision of providing justice giving the convicts what they deserve. In addition, it is also regarded as a method of provide justice to the victims. Out of many reasons, the first and major reason is for the administration of justice. According to Dagger (as cited in Bronsteen 2008), it is the society that gives power to the government for their own protection from criminals and deter the people in order to safe guard the society in future. Secondly, deterrence is regarded as another main reason for punishment. It is the return of a crime committed by the offender in order to make them guilty of what they have done. A bulletin presented by Weatherburn, Hua and Moffatt (2006) for NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research shows that the level of imprisonment rate in New South Wales prevent around 45,000 burglaries annually as a result of incapacitation. The bulletin has also presented some statistical charts in order to suggest that the rate of re-offense shall decrease if the criminals get incapacitated. The third reason, based upon utilitarian philosophy suggests punishment is required to increase the welfare of society by providing better security. The security is gained by sentencing the criminals or by putting other ways of incarceration methods. Taking an example of India, where the rape cases are highly sensitive cases, Chugh (2013) recommends the government to focus more on capital punishment and serious varieties of incarceration for punishment to such kind of cases. Even though there are some arguments at the international level on capital punishment as it is taken as violation of basic human rights, in order to control these sorts of inhumane crimes, there should be a strict law that can maintain the peace in society. Ultimately, punishment can be referred as a direct theory for retribution which affects the sentencing decision rather than incapacitation and deterrence. It is one of the social expressions which can avoid a chaos in the society.
On the other hand, rehabilitation is taken as a completely different form of criminal justice where an offender is treated through various creative techniques and certain therapy methods to get reintegrated back into the society. An effective and holistic rehabilitation model includes motivation, supportive language used in treatment and overall social behavioural attitude towards the offender. There are various reasons that clarify the importance of rehabilitation. First of all, it is the best way to reduce the effects of any risks by rehabilitation which includes restoration through a good life plan that can be administered in a systematic way. For instance, good life model plan can be a positive psychological approach for the sexual offenders to enhance their prudential values like self determination, friendship, happiness, creativity and spirituality in their minds. This approach has been implied practically and the achievement has been successful to a greater level because the whole process is carried out understanding every individual’s circumstances and their background (Mann, Ward & Theresa, 2006). Secondly, rehabilitation is the best key to mitigate and reduce recidivism. Offenders in a community are more likely to get involved in another criminal activity after getting released out from prison if they still face problems in life. However, if provided an integrated approach to manage the offenders while they are being sentenced, the rates of recidivism can be lowered to an extensive level. If we look at the example of Norway prison system, the research studies show the rates of recidivism at a very low level. Norway has less than 4000 prisoners in their prison cells throughout the whole country whereas it is around 84000 in United Kingdom. It is not because of the population difference but mainly from the attitude and the behaviour of prison system towards their prisoners. The lenient and liberal system in prison of Norway provides a proper education, vocational life sustaining skills, and job opportunities within the prison which gives the country a better result in less recidivism (James 2013). Thirdly, various treatment programs operated during rehabilitation can create a better economic benefit for the state overall. A statistics provided by Donato and Shanahan (1999) mentions, ‘For an 8 percentage point reduction in recidivism rates, the net economic benefits range from $258,000 to $1.85 million.’ Similarly, reintegrating offenders back to the society can influence the financial accountability of a particular community. Gaining various trainings and skills shall support their livelihood expense and give a contribution through productive community participation in the society. Therefore, rehabilitation has a greater value towards reintegration and restoration in upbringing the offenders back to the society.
Meanwhile, there are certain discussions which are essential for comparing and contrasting both of the prison models. Both retribution and rehabilitation models have been powerful and clinically effective in some cases and there are some negative impacts from these models as well. Firstly, starting with the cases of re-offending crime, researches show that the countries adopting rehabilitation program have a low rate of recidivism in comparison to the countries where retribution acts dominant. For example, a case study from Western Australian prison system from 2005-2010 shows a decreased rate on re offending crimes by the ex-offenders who have pursued correctional education studies during the sentence period (Giles, 2016). Likewise, having an overview at the murder rates of United States and Norway, it would be another supporting fact to prove that rehabilitation is well effective than retribution. United States suffers from the result of a ferocious punishment that has been getting in connection with other crimes (W, 2011). Secondly, taking economy in an account, the expenses allocated for retributive programs have a higher budget with low return in comparison to rehabilitative programs. Let us imagine of a shoplifter being caught stealing goods from a shop. The justice charges him a fine with certain days of sentence in custody. If the culprit would be charged with a heavy fine double than the volume of goods being theft, obviously, the state would raise more rather than keeping the shoplifter inside the bars and providing basic facilities. On the other hand, rehabilitation programs might serve injustice to the victims for severe crimes as rape cases, genocides and other brutal murders. Most of the law makers and high delegates support on the same point that a sanction should be formulated to treat the offender for committing severe crimes and regard as a potential threat to the overall society. These types of severe crimes cannot be a coincidence; therefore the court should address the demands of victims and punish the people who violate law and order of the society. Apparently, retributivism explains that the more severe the crime is, harsher should be the punishment as such crimes needs to be censored from the community. In addition, rehabilitation fails at cases when the culprit pretends to be repentant. There are some cases in crime that cannot be overcome by rehabilitation process and can create an illusion for the state that may be a danger for the state in the future.
To summarize, punishment is a method to prevent the criminal from harming other people living in a community and it also deters other people from committing the crime whereas rehabilitation is a method to change the attitude and behaviour of the criminal to reintegrate them into the society to make a balance and safeguard human rights. Both of the models are equally important and essential in society to maintain a peaceful environment for the overall wellbeing of every citizen. It is clear that both of the models have positive and negative aspects. Therefore, it should be the duty of the state to study the case of a crime from every perspective without any biasness to provide a better justice for the victims and a model of punishment which can includes self-realization and a positive message to other people within the state.
References:
Bronsteen, J 2008, ‘Retribution’s role’, Indiana Law Journal & The Supplement, vol. 84, pp. 1130-1156, viewed 18 May 2016,
http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/84/84_4_Bronsteen.pdf
Chugh, A 2013, Rape in India: a focus on retribution, Muftah, 12 February, viewed 18 May 2016,
http://muftah.org/rape-in-india-a-focus-on-retribution/#.Vzuc4HYrKUm
Donato, R & Shanahan, M 1999, The economics of implementing Intensive in-prison sex offender treat programs, November, viewed 29 May 2016,
http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi134.pdf
Giles, M 2016, Study in prison reduces recidivism and welfare dependence: A case study from Western Australia 2005-2010, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, viewed 17 May,
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/501-520/tandi514.html
James, E, 2013, ‘The Norwegian prison where inmates are treated like people’, The Guardian, 25 February, viewed 18 May 2016,
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
Mann, R.E, Ward, T & Theresa, A.G 2006, The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Clinical implications, 7 March, viewed 20 May 2016,
https://www.ccoso.org/sites/default/files/import/Ward-Mann—Gannon-2007.pdf
Weatherburn, D, Hua, J & Moffatt, S 2006, How much crime does prison stop? The incapacitation effect of prison on burglary, January, viewed 29 May 2016,
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb93.pdf
Context and Perspectives 