What Constitute A Rehabilitation Theory

(4) The objectives of a rehabilitation programme are to change the character of the prisoner to conform to the law, and to return a

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)

While many conservatives oppose the rehabilitative measures restorative justice offers offenders and demand more prisons and penalties, advocates for restorative justice counter this demand with research. Restorative justice advocates call for restitution rather than retribution. According to promoters for restorative justice, imposing harsh penalties on offenders and lengthening prison sentences is futile. “Critical theorists argue that the ‘old methods’ of punishment are a failure and that upwards of two-thirds of all prison inmates recidivate soon after their release” (Siegel, 2008, p. 188). While conservatives want to build more prisons and lock away more offenders for longer terms, supporters of restorative justice believe that a more rehabilitative approach is beneficial for not only the offender, but also the community. “The offender is asked to recognize that he or she caused injury to personal and social relations along with a determination and acceptance of responsibility. Only then can the offender be restored as a productive member of society” (Siegel, 2008, p. 190). Placing an offender in prison for any amount of time is shown to be harmful to the offender, their victim, and society. “Rather than reduce recidivism, harsher punishments may increase the likelihood of reoffending” (Siegel, 2008, p. 86). A conservative asking for more prisons would likely be met with a barrage of evidence explaining why restorative justice will and

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

I agree that rehabilitation should be the primary goal in sentencing. Rehabilitation teaches a criminal how to interact with the community after being away for a set amount of time. Days in prison and jail can hinder the positive thoughts in one’s mind. Anger and depression can build up, and make the criminals want to act out again. The rehabilitation process can even mend burnt bridges with family and friends.

Rehabilitation assumes criminal behavior can be improved with non-punitive methods. Rehabilitation, although non-punitive, usually occurs along side punishment. For instance an incarcerated person may be given many rehabilitative options. Mental health programming, substance abuse counseling and even education programming exist in modern day correctional facilities. A judge may sentence someone to attend rehabilitative programming as a part of probation or it may be included as a stipulation in a plea agreement. At the core of rehabilitation is the thought that a criminal is flawed, often through no fault of their own. Poverty, mental health issues, or childhood trauma may all contribute to a criminal life and rehabilitation attempts to aid in a sort of recovery. If a person is cured of their issues, perhaps they will not recidivate.

People often wonder why does the criminal justice (CJ) system fail to rehabilitate the inmates before they are released from prison, after all isn’t that part of the process? Isn’t it a mandatory that the inmates participate in this rehabilitation process? Inmates are often released before their sentenced in completed and this can leave the victim and family with a feeling of betrayal from the justice system, they should serve more time, after all they stole my property and my money. This feeling of needing a longer sentence for the crime that was committed is excessive, especially when the crime value may be minimal and wanting the inmate to serve seven to ten years incarcerated in excessive.

In our world, nobody is perfect. Some people have disorders; some people are not raised correctly; some people are in need of essentials. These conditions are usually the main causes of a crime. On the other hand, the good news is that most people can be rehabilitated. The only people who might not be able to be rehabilitated are people with major disorders. Even though some people can’t be rehabilitated, we still need to make a safe community, so we need to rehabilitate the people that can be rehabilitated. In order to do that “[w]e need to create prison conditions, both physical and psychological, that encourage cooperation on all sides and that support change as opposed to conflict and calcification of negative behavior” (Chura). The people that made mistakes that got them in prison need to know that what they did was wrong, and how to fix it. They also need to know to never do it again, and be aware of the differences between right and wrong. The people that can be identified as good candidates for rehabilitation need to go through reform programs in prison and learn how

Another goal of criminal sentencing is to rehabilitate. “Rehabilitation is a programmed effort to alter the attitudes and behaviors of inmates and improve their likelihood of becoming law-abiding citizens” (Seiter, 2008, p. 32). Rehabilitation assumes that criminals have underlying problems that are the cause of their criminality and that if these causes are treated, the offender can return to society and possibly provide some type of restitution for the victims of their crimes.

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?

As the range of fields that study crime grew, the theory of rehabilitating the offender shifted into focus more prevalently. The aim of the theory of rehabilitation is to reform the offender, that is to say, rid them of their criminal ways. Cohen sees this task to be outside the capabilities of the justice system. The myriad of components that lead an individual to crime whether they are economic, psychological or otherwise, is too complex for the justice system to be able to grok fully. Cohen equates this project to the reconstructing of society as a whole. In order to truly be able to rehabilitate a single offender society itself might have to adjust in order to prevent this particular criminal from reoffending. Critics of the

When a person is guilty of a crime, it is society’s job to punish this person for their act. Once the person has been found guilty, they are then sentenced by a judge with a certain purpose or purposes for the punishment. The main four purposes used are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Retribution is defined by Mani as the offender ‘must be punished simply because the wrongful act merits condemnation and punishment.’ (Reference). Deterrence is ‘based on the idea that criminal behaviour can be deterred if punishment is swift, certain, and severe enough to counter the benefits or pleasure gained from committing crime.’ (Reference). Rehabilitation of an offender may be achieved through education or therapy. However, it must be understood that in order for rehabilitation to be

In years past, law enforcement and the criminal justice system have witnessed a paradigm shift in the expectations of the correctional system. Prior to modern societies innovative patterns of thinking, the general expectation of the correctional system was to either punish the offenders with confinement or rehabilitate the offenders from their criminally deviant ways. Unfortunately, the lack of effectiveness in the rehabilitation process and the high rate of recidivism has brought more attention to reform needed for the criminal justice system and corrections, more specifically. Society has come to expect that corrections be modeled around a rehabilitation-driven environment in order to successfully prevent offenders from re-offending.

Rehabilitation is more of a therapeutic method to help the criminal ditch crime and become a constructive member in society. “Rehabilitation involves teaching inmates silks and trades that will, hopefully, give them a chance to become law-abiding citizens once they are released from prison” (Long). This method is looked at as more of a treatment than a punishment, to guide the criminal to make better choices and live a better life.

Psychosocial rehabilitation has its theoretical roots in evolving a failed effort, by the mental health system, to help mentally ill patients in coping with the psychosocial devastation brought on by severe mental illness and behavioural problems (Correctional Services Canada, 2013). The traditional methods of treatment viewed recovery as a process of curing an illness, usually with medication, but recovery does not subsequently occur once their illness is “treated” (CSC, 2013). This traditional method was ineffective because their recovery was halted by limited support and skills and ‘abnormal’ behaviours learned in institutions (CSC, 2013). These deficits resulted in chronic impairments and maladaptive social functioning (CSC, 2013). These individuals were unable to fulfill normal social roles and successfully live independently in the community (CSC, 2013). The PSR approach to recovery incorporates more than just eliminating the signs and symptoms of the illness, is based on understanding the patients voice and experiences and encouraging participation and self-determination in treatment (CSC, 2013). This approach recognises the care values such as hope, empowerment, and determination are essential to recovery (CSC, 2013). The importance of skill development and community support are also highlighted (CSC, 2013).