The five goals of corrections: history, philosophy, and empirical validity

¶ … Goals of Corrections

The objective of this work is to research the five goals of corrections which are those of: (1) retribution; (2) deterrence; (3) rehabilitation; (4) incapacitation; and (5) restoration. The history, philosophy, development and empirical validity of each will be discussed as well as the status of each in terms of the present. This work will conclude with a statement of recommendation as to the preferred corrections theory stating why that is the theory thought superior to the other corrections theories. Finally stated will be that which should serve to guide corrections in the future.

Retribution is just another word for punishment or sometimes said as 'getting what someone deserves' or 'just desserts' which all speaks of the belief that the individual committing the offense should received the appropriate punishment that is deserved to them for the offense committed. Deterrence is the idea that it is the 'fear' of the punishment will serve to stop or refrain individuals from committing the crime. Deterrence is often gender-specific of offense-specific. Incapacitation or the taking of the offender into physical custody to stop the offender from committing future crimes is another theory of corrections. Rehabilitation has as its' basis the idea that society should reform offenders so they will refrain from commission of crimes and become useful and productive members of society. Incapacitation is based on the idea that the individual who is incarcerated can hardly commit a crime in society. Finally, Restoration is the utilization of the processes of the criminal justice system in rebuilding relationships among the victim, community and offender and reparation of the harm of the offense. Restoration is based on the accountability and self-responsibility of the offender. Rusche and Kirchheimer relate that one cannot understand punishment from its ends only because punishment never really exists, but instead "concrete systems of punishment and specific criminal practices exist." (Santos, nd) Michel Foucault relates in 'Discipline and Punish' that modern corrections can be both useful and functional and is contended to be completely unconnected to crime reduction and recidivism but instead is system of "power and regulation." (Santos, nd)

I. RETRIBUTION

One example of retribution is the juvenile intensive probation supervision program (JIPS) emergent in the 1980s as an alternative to incarceration under the 'get tough' movement instead of the 'get treatment' approach. This 'get tough' approach in the community was influenced in part by overcrowding in the prisons and jails and as stated in Burkhart (1987 p. 75) individuals in the U.S. were faced with a "social dilemma caused by the desire to obtain maximum offender control through imprisonment and a reluctance to support the high public costs associated with prison construction and the maintenance of a large inmate population." (Byrne, 1990) Punishment consists of 'home arrest and frequent control mechanisms of surveillance and frequent face-to-fact contacts. According to Lurigio & Petersilia (1992, p.9) and related in Petersen (1996):"The increased monitoring and surveillance in intensive probation supervision programs are designed to boost offenders' perceptions of the effectiveness of the system in detecting and punishing their criminal behavior." (Petersen, 1996) Therefore, according to Petersen it may be for mere purposes of punishment that the intensive probation program was designed "in the guise of some limited treatment services." (Ibid) Petersen concludes by noting that "unsettling tension exists amongst the experts between the two polarized elements of the purpose and practice of JIPS; that is, treatment and rehabilitation v. control and punishment. Harland & Rosen (1987) define this dilemma as the "control vs. cure" debate." (Petersen, 1996)

II. DETERRENCE

Deterrence may be through many various methods and historically certainly was varied in local laws and customs concerning punishment for crimes committed. Deterrence is based on early theory of criminology that posits that "sufficiently repugnant punishments will inhibit individuals from committing crime." (MacKenzie, nd)

III. REHABILITATION

The theory of rehabilitation belonged to Zebulan R. Brockway at the First Conference of the American Prison association. Law-abiding behavior was the result of industry and education was centric to this theory. Poor educational achievement was seen to be a risk factor associated with delinquent behavior. Studies conducted in the past have shown that "school attachment, educational achievement and educational aspirations" are factors that are."..inversely associated with delinquent behavior." (MacKenzie and Hickman, 1998) Some rehabilitation approaches are more effective than are others and from the psychological researcher's viewpoint the treatment programs found to be effective are those that follow several basic principles (Gendreau and Ross, 1979, 1987; Gendreau and Cullen, 1989) the basic principles of rehabilitation include the following:

Principle One: Treatment must directly address characteristics that can be changed (dynamic) and that are directly associated with an individual's criminal behavior factors;

Principle Two: There are numerous risk factors associated with criminal activity. Age, gender and early criminal involvement are some examples. In comparison to others, young males who began criminal activities at a young age are higher risks for future criminal activities.

Principle Three: These "static" characteristics such as age, gender and past history, while predictive of recidivism, cannot be changed in treatment. Instead, the "dynamic" or changeable factors should be the target of treatment programs." (MacKenzie, nd)

Critics of 'rehabilitation' including Gendreau (1981); Gendreau and Ross (1979, 1981, 1987); Gottfredson (1979); Cullen and Gilbert (1982); Greenwood and Zimring (1985) argued that treatment programs could not reduce recidivism even potentially because it was not possible to draw conclusion from the research due to the fact that the method of research was inadequate and the programs were studied in such a poor implementation and that delivery of the study was "in such a weakened form that they would not reasonably be expected to have an impact." (MacKenzie, nd)

IV. INCAPACITATION

Incapacitation may mean imprisonment through various levels and methods. This is a simple concept in that those incarcerated are clearly unable to commit crimes outside of prison thereby preventing them from committing crimes against those in the community. In the decade of the 1970s incapacitation rates grew however correlational studies making examination of the association between arrest and incarceration rates have not found a consistent relationship between these two factors. (Zimring and Hawkins, 1995) Making the effectiveness of this strategy of corrections questionable are the following facts:

1) it is impossible to predict the high frequency future offenders so increased sentencing targeting is not possible;

2) Financial costs must be considered in the incapacitation crime prevention strategy;

3) Limited returns have been noted for large increases in incapacitation because the would-be offender is now a dependent upon the system; and 4) Actual estimates of crimes prevented are difficult to determine due to the requirement of estimation of criminal participation and duration of careers.

SUMMARY

Clearly research demonstrates both positive and negative results from use of the strategies of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation; restoration and certainly what is the best correctional strategy for one type of individual might not be the best whatsoever for use with another individual. The individual who is truly criminally insane will not respond to any of the attempts in correction strategies except that of incapacitation in a prison facility. Just as clearly no individual who is logical would consider Charles Manson or Theodore Bundy as eligible profiles for the restorative justice program or even for rehabilitation program or indeed of any other than imprisonment or death by execution There are however, very potentially productive, useful, and worthy individuals who are shuffled into the correction system due to their inability to hire a lawyer or lack of knowledge concerning their rights to having representation appointed to them that with education and knowledge or skills acquisition can be successfully rehabilitation or restored to society and within the community. Recently there has been documented an additional strategy in criminal justice corrections which is described as a 'transformational' process and is a cognitive-behavioral approach in treatment.

RECOMMENDATIONS for FUTURE CORRECTIONS

Cognitive behavioral approaches are being used in transforming the dysfunctional thinking of the individual. The work of Mahoney and Lyddon (1988) relate approximately 20 various types of cognitive behavioral therapies, which generally are either:

1) Moral reasoning theories; or 2) Information processing theories.

MacKenzie and Hickman (1998) state:

In terms of criminal behavior, the cognitive-behavioral tradition suggests that criminals think differently than noncriminals, either because of a lack of moral reasoning or through dysfunctional information processing. Thus, cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation programs in a correctional setting should focus on changing these problematic thought processes, which are contributing to criminal behavior. Research has shown that improved reasoning and pro-social thinking skills are related to reduced recidivism (Gendreau & Ross, 1981). Specific therapies based on these concepts, such as Moral Reconation Therapy and Reasoning & Rehabilitation, have been developed and implemented for correctional populations (Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Little & Robinson, 1988)."

Moral Reconation Therapy is stated to be effective in the recidivism of offenders. Reasoning and Rehabilitation are also stated to be effective in the reduction of recidivism of offenders. The work entitled: "Ending the Culture of Street Crime" states that there has been an "...almost pathological resistance to meaning-fully addressing the moral, cultural, socioeconomic, and political realities that operate to sustain and instigate criminal deviance. Notwithstanding racism and economic factors, it can be reasonably argued that a high rate of crime in wealthy industrialized nations is symptomatic of a society suffering from moral malnutrition. Criminals on every level of society become addicted to the psychological sweets derived from engaging in antisocial behavior. Much of the crime and violence in society can be directly linked to the inculcation of socio-psychological behavioral responses to feelings of anger, fear, shame, deprivation, entitlement, and greed." (World Criminology & Prison Journal, 2005) This work states as well the reality that the street culture leadership is a hierarchy of gang leadership in which leaders of the gangs maintain control over the members of the gang and the activities of the gang. The 'economic factor' is related as the gang operates in the 'fast money' street culture. The second factor noted is the 'psychological factor' in which the self-image of the individual is affected by the "...distorted misconceptions..." (World Criminology and Prison Journal, 2005) Further stated in this work is the fact that: "Most attempts to increase public safety have been directed mainly at the individual perpetrator through programs, punishment, or incarceration. However, little effort has been made to directly confront the very culture from which the problem emanates. To break the cycle, a comprehensive strategy must be developed that is directed simultaneously at the three main target populations perpetuating the cycle." (Ending the Culture of Street Crime, World Criminology and Prison Journal, 2005)