Punishment vs Rehabilitation

Punishment versus Rehabilitation 

Deborah S Hagood

Grand Canyon University: PSY 623

October 17, 2018

Punishment versus Rehabilitation

“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time,” an old catchphrase from a 1970s show should be the motto for the United States prison system. A simple solution for crime; punishment, if one does not wish to be incarcerated, then he or she should not commit the crime. However, it is not that simple of a solution to eliminate crime with fear. Some individuals suffer from mental illnesses, others are products of their environment, and some simply do not care about the punishment. Which results in the need for a different approach to crime and punishment; rehabilitation. Rehabilitation must be an important part of the criminal justice system, as it can help the offender and help prevent future acts of crime.

Crime prevention is a complicated ideology and something politicians often utilize in speeches. Now the criminal justice system is founded on crime control/prevention and punishment, rather than community-based programs and rehabilitation. Every offender is different; the crimes they commit and the way in which they commit these crimes are not going to be the same. Therefore, crime prevention cannot come from a strict notion that the problem or cause can be addressed, thus eliminating crime. If this were the case, crime would have been already eliminated. Crime cannot be fully prevented because humans are unpredictable; however, it is possible to detour crime and keep it from happening again. Programs that involve local communities and schools can help crime prevention, especially when they focus on troubled youth. Certain communities may need different program options depending on their crime rate in that area. Each community cannot operate the same as another. Sherman et al. (2018) stated, “the necessary condition for successful crime prevention practices in one setting is inadequate support for the practice in related settings” (Key Concepts in Crime Prevention, para. 9). For example, Nampa, Idaho according to Thorne (2017), “Crime data collected by Idaho State Police show that there were about 11 violent crime victims per 1,000 residents in 2015” (para. 6). However, Fox 2 News (2017) reported, in Detroit, out of a population of 669,673, there were 13,705 violent crimes in 2016. What works for Nampa may not work for Detroit as far as community crime prevention goes. Yet most community crime prevention programs operate as though crime rates are the same in each community. Therefore, when crime prevention is not successful, the criminal justice system must shift its focus to punishment. Although, punishment may not be the primary solution to crime, rather rehabilitation may be the key to preventing crime. 

After a person has been convicted of a crime, he or she is possibly sent to prison for a specified amount of time. While incarcerated, it is essential that the offender begin the process of rehabilitation to ensure he or she upon release, enters society with new skills to help navigate without the option to re-offend. Programs such as restorative justice are reshaping the way prison systems handle offenders. Restorative justice allows the victim(s) to be in direct contact with the offender while he or she is in prison. Currently there are 31 states that offer this rehabilitation and it allows the victim(s) to ask questions or discuss the event(s) with the offender, while also allowing the offender to do something positive for the victim (Stateline, 2016). Projects such as these will allow the offender to understand what he or she has done, which can lead to a decrease in crime and recidivism. Suttie (2015) believed, “Not only does restorative justice offer deeper levels of engagement and rehabilitation, many argue it is more cost effective, produces less recidivism, and is more satisfying to victims of the crime than the current model” (para. 4). Although the data from these programs allow the prison system to see that it is working, still only 31 states have this as an option for rehabilitation. 

The correctional environment should also focus its attention on rehabilitation for those who suffer from mental illnesses. Individuals with mental illnesses make up most of the population within prisons today. Information provided by Al-Rousan, Rubenstein, Sieleni, Deol, and Wallace (2017) stated, “The mentally ill are overrepresented in correctional settings at estimated rates ranging from two to four times the general population” (p. 1). If these offenders are released back into society without any form of rehabilitation, he or she will more than likely become a repeat offender. The correctional environment should represent a place for healing and long-term solutions. Yet, now the main goal is to detain and punish the offender for the court mandated amount of time, regardless of their mental illness. Chamberlin (2009) found, “A lot of the strategies focus on punishment and gaining immediate compliance, not necessarily thinking of the long-term implications for behavioral change” (The Power of Praise, para. 4). Finding the balance between the correctional environment and rehabilitation can present some complications, according to Benson (2003), “another constraint is the basic philosophical difference between psychology, which is rehabilitative at heart, and corrections, which is currently punishment-oriented” (The Mentally Ill, para. 6). These complications are what keep the correctional environment and rehabilitation environment separated. However, programs that include theories such as positive praise can be implemented within the prison to help with rehabilitation and are now working in some prison environments. Chamberlin (2009) believed, “Psychologists can train correctional officers on how to prompt and reward positive behavior and reduce misconduct, allowing mental health professionals to have backup on the front lines” (The power of praise, para. 5). Training correctional officers in different ways to respond to behaviors within the correctional environment can begin the integration of the two different environments creating one cohesive rehabilitation/correctional environment. 

Today, other rehabilitation programs such as the Insight Prison Project are operating and finding some success. Suttie (2015) found:
The program aims to help incarcerated men learn new emotional skills and correct
problem behaviors in order to succeed in and out of prison. IPP offers a multipronged
approach to personal transformation, including classes in violence prevention, yoga, and
mindfulness. It also brings victims and survivors together with inmates, so that the men
can be exposed to the human impact of the types of crimes they’ve committed (para. 5).

However, the lack of funding and assistance from trained professionals leaves these programs lacking in several prisons. If rehabilitation and prevention are truly the goal, programs like the Insight Prison Project are a necessity. They are allowing offenders and victims to find their way through these tragedies and repairing the damage that has been caused. These programs need to be applied to all prison environments to ensure that offenders are on the right path before being released into society. The outcome of these programs is showing that it does more to help the offender than current prison practices. It is complicated to justify putting more money towards rehabilitation programs, but in the long run it can save money. Gilligan (2012) found that offenders who participated in rehabilitation programs were less likely to re-offend and the program saved $4 for every $1 spent on it, which equates to roughly $30,000 a year per person (para. 5). Increasing the budget to include mental health counselors, programs, and training for correctional officers will provide a safer environment while lowering overall costs. 

If you do the crime, you should be offered the chance to learn and become the best possible version of yourself. The rehabilitation and prevention programs mentioned throughout this work proves that they are an important part of the prison system. Punishment is a necessary component of justice, people want to feel as though they have received some justice for the wrongs that were done to them. However, does that have to come at the expense of the offender? The answer is no, more victims should not be created on the path to justice. The offender must be removed if he or she is a threat to society, but the offender should also be rehabilitated to become a better part of society. When an offender serves the sentence mandated by the court system, he or she should reenter society with the skills needed to live a successful life without crime or violence, resulting in a better society and safer communities. 

References

Al-Rousan, T., Rubenstein, L., Sieleni, B., Deol, H., & Wallace, R. (2017). Inside the nation’s
largest mental health institution: A prevalence study in state prison system. BMC Public
Health, 17(342). doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4257-0.

Benson, E. (2003). Rehabilitate or punish? American Psychological Association, 34(7).

Chamberlin, J. (2009). Crime and punishment: Effective rehabilitation is absent from most
American prisons. How can psychology help? American Psychological Association,
40(9).

Fox 2 News. (2017). FBI: Detroit has nation’s highest violent crime rate, Chief Craig disputes
data. Retrieved from http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/fbi-detroit-has
nations-highest-violent-crime-rate-chief-craig-disputes-data

Gilligan, J. (2012). Punishment fails. Rehabilitation works. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be
productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-works

Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (n.d.).
Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm

Stateline, R. (2016). Can restorative justice help offenders reintegrate into society? Retrieved
from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/can-restorative-justice-help-offenders
reintegrate-society

Suttie, J. (2015). Can restorative justice help heal prisoners? Retrieved from
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/restorative_justice_help_prisoners_heal

Thorne, R. (2017). Addressing misconceptions of crime in Canyon County. Retrieved from
https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/addressing-misconceptions-of-crime-in-canyon
county/article_993ca025-5f33-5df0-93a9-fe472c91bdce.html