Utilitarianism: Reducing Recidivism

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)

Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level 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

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.

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham have been recognized as the founders of Utilitarianism. Contrary to Kant’s moral theories, Utilitarian’s would disagree with most of Kant’s theory. While Kant believed that it is the intention of the action that should be recognized as moral or unmoral, J.S Mill and Bentham would say that it is in fact the outcome of said action that determines morality.

The guidelines for repairing harm requires that, to the best extent attainable, offenders take responsibility and take action to make things right with those individuals who were harmed (Bazemore & Maruna, 2009). Reentry and recidivism is unmistakably a test for all involved. In the course of recent decades, the United States has encountered imprisonment rates that have almost quintupled, with 1,610,584 prisoners currently incarcerated in state and

One of the most talked bout problems on the definition of recidivism is how unclear it can be. It has such a broad measure due to it not being broken down to one topic (ex. just convictions, just arrests, or even more importantly just acknowledging the amount of returns to prison). The BJS mentioned earlier (Bureau of Justice Statistics) studies the measures that the rate of recidivism by number of arrests, yet the one problem with it is just because you’re arrested doesn’t mean you are found guilty. Professor Edward Latessa, director of the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati claims “If you define it as a return to prison and you follow for a year, you’ll have a much lower rate,”

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

The United States of America is phrased by many, as being “the land of the free.” Yet, the Unites States currently has the highest per capita prison population than any other country. The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population and of that 5%, 25% of our overall nation’s population is currently incarcerated. A few factors that attribute to our high rates of incarceration include, sentencing laws: such as mandatory- minimum sentencing, lack of initial deterrence from crime, the war on drugs and the presence of recidivism. With our ever growing incarceration rates and the cost of housing individual offenders averaging $22,000 a criminal justice agenda. Recidivism refers to a person 's relapse into criminal behavior resulting in rearrests, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner 's release (National Institute of Justice.) Many programs have been implemented in our prison system to help reduce the recidivism rates. Programs such as educational/ vocational programming, reentry programs, substance abuse programs and subsidized employment are among many programs in which have been proven effective. Yet, due to costs deficits, the clock is ticking to find evidence based programs to invest in. So, the question currently being sought after is, which method is most effective in reducing recidivism rates?

Correctional treatment programs have long been thought not to be effective in lowering the recidivism among criminals; Martinson (1979). Researchers have done countless studies and surveys only to find out that many of these studies and programs work and nearly the same number of programs do not work, depending on what component was or was not a part of the studies. Knowing that all programs does not work for all criminals is a no brainer, however, finding a good mixture of what does work and for what percentage of criminals is a beginning to duplicate that program with a few minor adjustments in the programs.

Is long-term incarceration working to resolve issues of criminal conduct? When considering the population of people incarcerated is rising at an alarming rate and crime statistics not dropping by much, it is hard to tell if incarceration is working in these modern times. The United States prison population is the largest in the world. In fact, the United States has 2.3 million persons in institutions which is more than the rest of the world combined (Wagner p. 2). Crime overall as decreased in the last 30 years with the introduction of rehabilitation programs but these programs are not universal. While serious crimes require serious punishment, most people that are incarcerated should be

The United States justice system can be described as a cycle, where people enter the prison system, are released, and upon failure to integrate into society soon find themselves back behind bars. Although the means in which the cycle is perpetuated can be argued, the rate of re-offenders is constantly trying to be reduced. One term used to define this type of convict is recidivism, which is the repeat criminal action of a convicted inmate. Recidivism is fastly becoming a issue in the United States as it has been shown that 70% of convicted offenders have been reconvicted within three years of release (Esperian, 2010, p. 322). As crime of any background can be detrimental to society, this high rate of reentry into the justice system has stimulated

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

In addition it is usually the fear of being caught that is more of a deterrent and that while crime detection rates are low, the threat of an unpleasant penalty, if caught, seems to be remote. The value of general deterrence is even more doubtful as potential offenders are rarely deterred by severe penalties passed on others. The main aim of rehabilitation is to reform the offender and rehabilitate him into society. It is a forward-looking aim, with the hopes that the offender’s behaviour will be altered by the penalty imposed, so that he or she will not re-offend in the future (it aims to reduce crime this way)

Criminologist and politicians have debated the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation programs since the 1970’s when criminal justice scholars and policy makers throughout the United States embraced Robert Martinson’s credo of “nothing works” (Shrum, 2004). Recidivism, the rate at which released offenders return to jail or prison, has become the most accepted outcome measure in corrections. The public's desire to reduce the economic and social costs associated with crime and incarceration has resulted in an emphasis on recidivism as an outcome measure of program effectiveness. While correctional facilities continue to grow, corrections make up an increasing amount of state and federal budgets. The recidivism rate in