Punishment Compared With the Effectiveness of Rehabilitation

¶ … Punishment Compared With the Effectiveness of Rehabilitation

For most people within the criminal justice system, as well as society at large, rehabilitation and punishment are two choices which must be taken, rather than taking their synonymous meanings. They give the impression to be like possible synonyms or ways to refer to same processes. Is punishment rehabilitation? Or alternatively, is rehabilitation punishment (McNeill, forthcoming)?

The supporters of rehabilitation view offending etched in people's experience of injustice and social expulsion, to bank on an individual's (criminal) responsibility (the punishment is based on that) as ill-conceived and to emphasize the role of the state to rectify the mess of the total crime produced. Punishment for certain rehabilitationists seems like a fancy term use. Meanwhile, the critics argue that there could be vengeful, appropriate and fair terms to pile up (McNeill, forthcoming).

For many rehabilitation professionals, those who happen to be compassionate about the idea of dispensing punishment to convicted offenders; hold to a belief system that people can not only transform themselves but also their circumstances on their own. They can make new and better choices, overcome their adverse miseries, transform and change their situations and they do all this in order to champion a new future (McNeill, forthcoming).

For those who are deterministic about the genesis of criminal behavior and issues related, are inclined to believe in a better world, free will and power of the human mind (even when structural pressure and intense social pressure ensue) when issue of future prospects of rehabilitation arises. Most rehabilationists have a sound sense of justice and injustice, its apparent in their wish list that the state must pay its due diligence in honoring the individuals with 'criminogenic' experiences (McNeill, forthcoming).

The gift of the past century had been ethics and morals associated with correctional rehabilitation. It had been born with fuelling of progressive ideology and reform in consequent years. It grew stronger and stronger with social science developing rapidly in the 1930s and 1940s, reaching heights during the 1950s when medical model took on a new meaning. However, it suffered a setback during the 1960s and 1970s, and then totally forgotten in the 1980s (Logan and Gaes, 1993).

Entering the 1990s, rehabilitative ideal had been revived again as some researchers made use of latest research technological tool known as meta-analysis. These researchers thought that they had come across the Holy Grail. The questions put forth after a number of research studies on this subject had been whether the news of demise of rehabilitation false? Is it time to provide rehabilitation a nice burial and focus on redefining penology and neglect correctional references? (Logan and Gaes, 1993)

The debate on "punishment over treatment" is a long ensuing one done in empirical research and in ideology as well. A nice discussion should address both issues. Failure in not doing so has dispersed some important questions for instance (Which one is more appropriate: Punishment or rehabilitation?) passion for such questions normally is associated (for instance which is the correct goal for criminal justice: Rehabilitation or punishment?) this paper professes to review the recent empirical research done and claims for reliability of rehabilitation. The second aim is to argue the research's finding, punishment is better than rehabilitation for criminal justice, particularly punishment by confinement seems logical.

The results of several meta-analyses research studies, conducted on rehabilitation and punishment, did not prove that any mode of treatment as viable enough and working to perfection. It has not yet been established what works within correctional treatment. Furthermore, it has not changed or altered anything we already know. This is because the motive of incarceration is criminal justice, not correction of behavior (Logan and Gaes, 1993).

Rehabilitation for a lack of better word is a 'fankle' when considered as set of practices and concepts. Fankle is a Scottish word which means 'tangle' loosely. The annoying part or the teasing part of fankle is a job which is too time consuming and wearisome. It's an important one though, so tying them up together is imperative in the end (McNeill, forthcoming).

The purpose of correctional rehabilitation is to instill a positive change in folks. It's the model which is used mostly in treatment programs and various other forms of offender/offence based interventions. At its core, is the hope that offenders will become better people, given the adequate groundwork. The notion of correction means that offender must come to terms with normalized or resocialized standards of behavior accepted commonly (not expressed often).

Raynor and Robinson have pointed out a critical point, often neglected that correctional rehabilitation is like a huge church. It is a church which makes way for numerous methodologies and theories to work out. The word 'correction' is the focal point because crime causation is theories itself. Correctional rehabilitation as the name indicates, professes to change the offender's outlook and is closely aligned with methods and theories which clarify crime and focus on intervention at individual's level (McNeill, forthcoming).

Raynor and Robinson (2009) discusses reform and rehabilitation in their notes as a few penal theorists and historians take the 20TH century 'rehabilitation' in account, which is related to individual (psychological) treatment programs to rectify the personality (behavior and attitudes), and 'reform' which directs an earlier condition. It offers a chance at education and contemplation for reforming the individual's moral values again. Religion can be a form of reform just like 'psy' (social work, psychology and psychiatry) is to rehabilitation.