treatment of criminals

Treatment of Offenders in Dealing with the Social Problem of Crime

Student’s Name

Institution

Treatment of Offenders in Dealing with the Social Problem of Crime

The state’s law courts issue judgments day in day out. Some states have justice systems that are rehabilitation oriented while some others are retribution oriented. The belief that the pain inflicted on the offenders during punishment should be commensurate to the pain they inflicted onto the victims is retribution. Rehabilitation is however the belief that to make an offender a productive member of the society, social, spiritual and biological influences should be addressed. USA is a perfect example for a state that believes in retribution while Ireland has structured its justice system to be a reflection of a state that upholds rehabilitation.

These two elements can be deemed to be two opposing forces. First of all, retribution insists that the only morally accepted response to criminal activities would be to punish the offenders and so it seeks to punish them whereas rehabilitation seeks to offer assistance to offenders by changing their circumstances. The circumstances of the offenders can be changed through therapy, individual counseling, training and family intervention.

Secondly, retribution is based primarily on the behavioral premise that most offenders can be dissuaded from committing crimes by the relative likelihood of punishment as they are rational decision makers while rehabilitation is based on the behavioral premise that criminal offences are determined by social structures to a significant effect particularly psychological influences or individual circumstances. Lastly, retribution generalizes punishment to a minimum possible in the given circumstances but regardless of individual needs of offender while rehabilitation is forward-looking, that is, insists that punishment should be customized to the needs of an individual offender. CITATION Iva14 l 1033 (Bacik, 2014)Rehabilitation and retribution though words whose meanings are by far worlds apart interestingly have some similarities. To begin with, both rehabilitation and retribution are aimed at repairing harm. This is so since in both cases provision is made so that the victims are compensated for the offences done to them be it cash compensations or medical covers. Another jaw dropping similarity is the fact both elements advocate for seclusion of the offender from the general public. In both cases if the crime committed is either a felony or misdemeanors, the offender risks serving time behind bars. If rehabilitation is to be administered then this will happen if the offender is under house arrest or if he or she is behind bars.

The offender is secluded because he or she is considered a potential threat to the general population. Until such a time that the prisoner is rehabilitated (in the case for rehabilitation) or such a time that the right time behind bars is served (in the case for retribution) the offender remains secluded. Lastly, in both cases, they strive to ensure no repeat of occurrence of crime. The system either tries to rehabilitate the offender so that he or she shies away from committing crimes or inflicts pain upon the offender so as to discourage them from repeating their previous crimes. The pain infliction is purposed to remind the offender of the suffering he will go through in case he or she repeats the crime.

Human rights activists have been on the forefront on the verge of posing arguments that are meant to support rehabilitation in the justice system. One argument is that rehabilitation is in line with the fundamentals of human rights. The punishment system should only deprive offenders of the right to liberty. It shouldn’t by any chance restrict them from enjoying other human rights such as right to live. Rehabilitation condemns death sentences and in some countries that practice rehabilitation the maximum sentence is twenty one years in prison and nothing more. Another argument is that it is a permanent fix in deterring crime.

Rehabilitation is believed to have a more lasting effect as there is community supervision whereby the community guides and moulds the offender into a new being. The offenders are deterred from committing crime since they get to learn how to adapt in the society mostly by acquiring either or both academic and trade skills. They then become relevant in the job market and can score themselves employment instead of resolving into crime. The independence changes their criminal attitude leading to a reduction in the number of inmates behind bars and in the long run saving the tax payer’s money that would have been used to feed and clothe the offenders in prison. CITATION AKL06 l 1033 (Larrabee, 2006)Social arguments have also been made in support for retribution. For instance it has been argued that a just society should impose a death penalty to those individuals who commit murders or manslaughters. After a life is unlawfully taken, balance of justice can only be restored if the life of him or her who took that life is taken. Unless this happens, the society will eventually succumb to the rule of violence, and trust me nobody wants that. Taking the murderer’s life helps restore balance allowing the society to show both practically and convincingly that murder is indeed an intolerable crime and it is punished in kind.

Retribution also helps reduce crime rates in a society. When corporal punishment is offered to the offenders they will learn from this experience. Meanwhile those who are contemplating joining the band of misfits will think twice as no one would like to be dealt with by the arms of the law. These factors would greatly, if not tremendously, lead to a decrease in crime rates within a society as new offenders will convince themselves not to enter into crime while the veterans are caught up[ with and encouraged top end their criminal careers after brushing their shoulders with the law.

Does the prison system work? This is one of the social issues that could be used to support this entire analysis. In as much as the importance of the correctional facilities in the society can never be overstated, we must ask ourselves if the system really works. Does it cost too much? Feeding and providing the basics to the offenders behind bars costs a lot of money. Is the cost worth it? And all those inmates who were wrongly accused of committing crimes couldn’t defend themselves and are now behind bars. What about them? Is the system fair to them or are they meant to be hit by the stray bullets.

Does the prison system prevent reoffending among those enrolled into the so called magical transformation bus? 1700 children end up in local authority care every single year because their mothers have been taken to prisons. CITATION Erw13 l 1033 (James, 2013) What is the probability that these kids raised under the care of the local authority would end up responsible law abiding citizens? Is this not a means of manufacturing new prospective clients for the prison system? Does the prison system really work? The repetition is meant for emphasis.

Is it okay to take another man’s life? Of course it is not. That is why according to the constitution life is a state owned property hence no one, not even your mother, has any right whatsoever to take your. The only time one is allowed to resolve to such acts is when one is protecting his own life or when one is protecting his property. Self defense that is. This begs the question does anybody have the right to take a life if not for the sole purpose of self defense or protection of one’s property. Judges in my opinion should have a moral obligation to not issue death sentences to offenders on trial. Then there is the issue of the jungle/mob justice.

No group of people should be allowed to lynch another citizen. They do this so ferociously that the victim more often than not succumbs to death CITATION Aku14 l 1033 (Akure, 2014). Investigations might be carried out and the already dead victim found to be innocent a group of people lynching somebody is considered a gang and not concerned citizens. So it is really not okay that a judge or a mob would hold the fate of an individual’s life and they get to decide whether or not the person gets to live or die.

Lastly, this social issue keeps raising moral dilemmas every single day. Why does a murderer continue to live? Is it not proper that if you take another man’s life then your life should be taken too? Last year a man slaughtered a baby right in front of its mother and then he proceeded to slaughter the mother. Should this man face the death sentence of should he be sent to prison and be provided with a bed and clean sheets to spend the rest of his life in? Some people would argue that it is not okay to take another man’s life while others would argue that a murderer should not continue to live. The debate would be as endless as that debate of between the egg and the chicken which came first. These are just some of the physical or rather social issues that would arise from this subject. This puts emphasis on how complicated and important the judicial system is.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Elsevier.Smart, C. (2013). Women, Crime and Criminology (Routledge Revivals): A Feminist Critique. Routledge.Morris, T. (2013). The criminal area: A study in social ecology (Vol. 4). Routledge.