Imprisonment records a conviction and detains the offender within jail for an assigned amount of time. The offender completely is removed of any freedom or liberty and placed under high security and regulation. However, statistics of the rise in imprisonment have risen arguments about its ineffectiveness stating offenders have not been rehabilitated or recovered after their imprisonment. To an extent, imprisonment is unsuccessful in preventing reoffending or assisting the offender’s progress to recovery and adaptation into society. Elements of sentencing purposes, prison circumstances and culture, and whether the abolishment of imprisonment would be beneficial underlines imprisonment still plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system (Humphreys, 2006, pp.119-120).
In order to be effective imprisonment like other sanctions, seeks to accomplish all purposes of criminal sanctions. Section 5 (1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic.) features the aims of sanctions; punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. When deciding a sentence suitable to the crime committed, a judge has to consider all these aims and purposes. Punishment exists for society to acknowledge there is retribution to unlawful acts and for the satisfaction of society and the state who have been wronged. This also prevents the victim feeling that they have not been compensated for their damages and from desiring to seek revenge themselves. Deterrence is the aim to establish the
In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from
The purposes of sentencing are set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW) and fundamentally include deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and incapacitation as the purposes by which a judge may impose a sentence. Deterrence intends to
Incarceration is thought of as a positive form of punishment, and negative form of punishment. The opinion varies with the type of person, and their experience from jail if they have gone. Most inmates while in prison will tell you it is a horrible place that should be gone. That would allow criminals to be free and that would let them cause harm to others or other illegal activities. Incarceration was not designed to be a paradise, it is a detention center for the bad, and meant for them to be punished. Without jails the world would be filled with even more evil, and would leave people in more danger than they already are.
As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means
In prisons today, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are all elements that provide a justice to society. Prisons effectively do their part in seeing that one if not more of these elements are met and successfully done. If it were not for these elements, than what would a prison be good for? It is highly debated upon whether or not these elements are done properly. It is a fact that these are and a fact that throughout the remainder of time these will be a successful part of prison life.
“Lock them up and throw away the key” – that is usually the headline when in regards to offenders going to prison. However, billions of dollars are going into maintaining prisons, yet the rate of recidivism is around 44% (Pearsons, 2011), so it is clear that prisons are no longer effective. The main argument of this paper is that because prisons are inefficient, they should be abolished so other forms of punishment can be found and acted upon. Firstly, this paper will discuss the function of prisons in regards to penal abolition. Also, it will identify what penal abolition is and explain three alternatives to prison – housing alternatives, restorative models, and
In this paper we will discuss some descriptions of jail’s place in corrections and its role throughout history on most of these offenses come with a sentence of a year or less and anyone with over a year sentence is usually sent to a prison facility (Seiter, 2011). On the other hand, prisons have an ample amount of time to work with, rehabilitate, and reform offenders. Prisons do this with the hope that offenders can eventually be placed back into society and limit their recidivism back to crime. “The first jails were created in England and they were called goal” (Seiter, 2011,
The four goals of punishment are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Retribution is a punishment that when a person gets a punishment for something that they have done and to get back at them. An example for a retribution would when someone gets a death penalty for commenting a murder. Incapacitation is when a person is trying to prevent a person who already had a sentenced felony from committing any other future offenses. For example, say a person has robbed a bank multiple times and he is trying to commit it again but the authorities are preventing him doing that because they don’t want him to be sentenced a longer than what he is already sentenced for. Deterrence is a punishment for any criminal activity that is involved
There have been varied considerations during the incarceration of suspected offenders over the past decennary with respect to duration of imprisonment, severity of punishment, and the regularity or rate of recurrence of imprisonment. Furthermore, critics of incarceration have also been debating about the motives for incarceration, its usefulness, and ability to transform criminals. Fierce debates have also risen about fairness during incarceration
With the exception of probation, imprisonment has been the main form of punishment for serious offenders in the United States for over 200 years. Americans can be said to have invented modern incarceration as a means of criminal punishment. Although Europe provided precedents, theoretical justifications, and even architectural plans for imprisoning offenders, Americans developed the blueprints for the typical prisons of today and devised the disciplinary routines, types of sentences, and programs that prison systems of other countries subsequently adopted or modified (Rafter & Stanley 1999).
The intent of incarcerating criminals has fluctuated between punishment and rehabilitation for centuries. According to Thomas Cahill, Pennsylvania Quakers founded the first prison in America in 1790. The intent of the prison was to provide the offender “a peaceful (if compulsory) sanctum where offenders could study the scriptures, repent, and reenter society as rescued, reformed, and pious citizens”. Since that first “penitentiary”, public opinion and policies regarding incarceration have waivered. It appears that as the crime rate went up, greater emphasis was placed on punishment. As crime rates subsided, rehabilitation became more prevalent. (Cahill, 2007)
It can be argued that imprisonment has been widely found to have failed to achieve its stated goals. Rehabilitation as perceived within the prison context is a myth. The predominant objective of control has developed in such a manner as to exclude the successful operation of any rehabilitation process. In looking at the nature and operation of the New South Wales prison system, for example, one is confronted by a system preoccupied with notions of control and security. A very disturbing feature of the system is that the availability of such prison accommodation helps to define the nature of the offender rather than the offender being defined by the nature of his offence (Wilkinson, 1972).
It is through this that philosophers, government and prison officials have arrived at the five traditional goals of punishment which replicates elements of criminal punishment. They are retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration and incapacitation. Retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence are however the three most frequently used in today’s modern society, as they are the main justifications for punishment.
From their inception, prisons have attempted to act as both a deterrent and a rehabilitator. However, in certain times one of these is