Retributive, Utilitarian and Rehabilitative Justice Compared

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

There are five distinct philosophies to the punishment of criminal offenders. The deterrence model is based on the belief that punishment or threat of punishment will prevent citizens, offenders or non-offenders, from committing or recommitting crimes (Fagin, 2016), 2016). A real-life example of the deterrence model would be corporal punishment. Because the children who witnessed the punishment would not want to commit the act, and the child receiving the punishment would not want to recommit their crime, it was believed to be an effective strategy in forming school children’s behavior (Fagin, 2016). The belief that criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and it would never be safe to release them back into the community falls under the incapacitation philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016). The most common type of incapacitation is imprisonment. When offenders are imprisoned, they are unable to commit new crimes, and will no longer pose a threat to their communities. Rehabilitation on the other hand, is the belief that criminals can be cured of their criminality, and can be released back into the community (Fagin, 2016). Counseling, educational programs, and work skill programs are all different real-world examples of the rehabilitation model (Fagin, 2016). The aim of these programs is to help offenders get better and become a productive member of society. The idea of punishing criminals because they deserve to be punished fits into the retribution philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016), 194). An example of this philosophy today would be

The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the

There are many people who are critical of the US‘s prison sysetm; the idea of locking up those who commit crimes against a society simply to keep them from doing harm. Many say that more rehabilatation is necessary to improve these individuals and, therefore, society as a whole. What are some ways of doing this? Do you agree/disagree with this view and why? Is the prison system currently in place the best option for society? 2 pages, double spaced, 12pt. font.

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.

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Most findings indicate that punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and restitution are ineffective ways to reduce crime. It is noted that if the same resource monies could be redirected rehabilitation, the cost to the tax- payer would be reduced over time (Gertz et al, 2005). Rehabilitative programs are the most effective in reaching our ultimate goal of reducing crime and reducing future criminal behavior which is the purpose of incarceration. The problem with rehabilitation is that it is the most difficult to proof effective and even more difficult to persuade policy makers and community members to fund (Pinard, 2010). There are at

The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.

While incarcerated the individual may have the opportunity to receive rehabilitation. Does it mean that the individual will be rehabilitated? One can only imagine. This is a debatable issue. Is punishment or rehabilitation more effective in combating crime?

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

Any time a person commits a crime and gets caught, consequences are applied and they are held accountable. Committing crime violates social and legal rules and the effects can follow them for a lifetime. Although people pay the price for committing varies crime in correctional facilities, most of the time other programs are needed to be taken into consideration. Sentencing someone to prison can also suppresses the criminal behavior, feelings, and does not address the offenders criminogenic needs, hence why programing services are so important. When an offender serves their time and participates in programs it reduces the likely hood of them committing offences in the future. Programs such as anger management, therapy, and rehab can help repair

The utilitarian theory of punishment is another approach to the criminal justice system. Richard B. Brandt believes that this type of punishment is frequently found in Great Britain and the United States. He believes that utilitarian’s differ in their thoughts as to what is the “ideal” system would be but the punishment extended should be fair and that the threat of punishment may be more important than the punishment itself. Brandt discusses the difference in the prosecution and defense used to obtain maximum utility and how the punishment should be implemented and how to mitigate the punishment.

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].