Introduction
The type and theory of punishment a convicted criminal receives different in different parts of the world. The rehabilitative theory of punishment had been used predominately in early America but had the system has transformed into a retributive model. Many Western Countries adhere to the theory of rehabilitation as a theory of punishment. On the other hand, there are many countries to favor the retributive model of punishment. Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries adhere to the idea that the offender must pay for the crime. Both the rehabilitative and retribution theory of punishment have social and philosophical implications. However, the theories have very distinct attributes and little similarities.
Rehabilitative Theory of Punishment
The rehabilitation theory is a utilitarian theory of punishment. Under the utilitarian theory of punishment, punishment is not sought as a source of punishment against the offender only, but rather punishment should be based upon what is best for society. The goal is to deter the offender from future crime and rehabilitate the offender so that he or she may succeed in life. The offender is treated for his or her afflictions which could include drug or alcohol treatment, mental health treatment or treatment for violent behavior. Educational programs are used to provide the offender with future opportunities. Unlike the theory of retribution, the rehabilitative theory does not seek to punish the offender. The belief is not that the offender needs or deserves punishment. The focus is on the future behavior of the offender and the benefit the offender can be to society in the future. Instilling the offender with a new set of morals and values is the aim.
The social argument that the rehabilitation theory rests upon is that human beings have dignity and worth, and society should assist him or her for the sake of society itself. The rehabilitative theory is an individualist approach. Thus, the punishment should be tailored to meet the needs of the individual offender. The lives of the individual offender are evaluated to determine, not only the level of treatment, but the level of incapacitation as well.
Many social arguments exist for the method of rehabilitation as punishment. Society benefits from handling the offender in such a way as to reduce or eliminate his or her offending actions. Rehabilitation advances the general good of society. Another argument is that although society cannot change an offender to make him or her a non-offender, society can prevent unnecessary harm to the offender by avoiding excessive punishment. Finally, there is the argument that it cost less to rehabilitate an offender than it does to incarcerate an offender for long periods of time..
Philosophical and social issues also exist for the rehabilitative theory of punishment. One issue arises when an offender is found guilty of a crime but actually not guilty. If the offender is not guilty, and rehabilitation is sought, then what good comes to him or her and society as a result. Society would actually not be harmed so would punishment be justified. Another issue arises when considering the utilitarian thought of seeking greater happiness. Relying on the belief that rehabilitation is for the greater good, does not take into account that the majority of society may wish for the offender to be punished severely due to his or her crime. The greater good then would not be considered.
Finally, the rehabilitative theory of punishment considers the cause of the crime. This is beneficial to society as rather than ignoring what actually led the offender to commit a criminal act, the issue is addressed. Those in society who make the choice to participate in crime typically have significant issues like mental health and drug abuse. In addressing these issues, the individual and society as a whole becomes better.
Retribution Theory of Punishment
The retribution theory of punishment rests on the idea that a criminal offender must be punished for his or her actions. The criminal must suffer and deserves punishment because he or she violated the natural and moral order of society. In order to re-order what has been wronged, and to place a balance where an imbalance was created, the offender must be punished. Proportionality is significant under this theory of punishment. The retribution theory claims that the severity of the punishment should be equal to the seriousness of the crime.
The theory of retribution rests on the idea that retribution must occur against the offender as he or she engaged in a criminal act. For the protection of the offender and society, the offender must be punished. Punishment restores the offender’s human dignity and makes the offender right with society. The just desserts principle is another social argument offered in support of the retribution form of punishment. The just desserts principle rests on the theory that a criminal must be punished because he or she deserves punishment.
Immanuel Kant proposed a philosophical theory supporting retribution. Kant claimed that punishment must take into account the motive of the criminal offender. If the motive was intentional, the punishment would be different than if the motive was unintentional. Intentional criminal acts would be more severely punished according to Kant. . Within this philosophical theory, offenders receive exactly what they should expect in return. Thus, an intentional act toward another should be returned intentionally in the same manner and to the same degree. This is similar to the eye for an eye argument. Within the Code of Hammurabi and the Old Testament, the philosophical theory for punishment is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life” also the code of Hammurabi.
The retribution theory of punishment rests on the idea that a person that commits a crime has violated the rights of another, and therefore, should be punished. The punishment instilled upon the offender places the moral order that the offender disturbed back into place. Another philosophical idea behind the theory of retribution is that society should inflict the same harm to the criminal that the criminal inflicted upon another. Most importantly, however, is that the severity of the punishment must be equal to that of the severity of the crime.
Distinctions and Similarities
Punish or treat? Retribution and rehabilitation are two distinct theories of crime, yet both seek to prevent future crime and both seek justice for the sake of society. Retribution is sought as a punishment while rehabilitation is a treatment. Retribution looks to the past crime as a reason for punishment while rehabilitation looks to the future of the offender. Retribution does not look to the individual needs of the offender or address offender deficiencies like the rehabilitative theory. There has always been crime in the world, and theorists and researchers have always sought answers to explain crime. Thus, it makes sense that there will also always be a need to define punishment and look for the appropriate means for individuals to face consequences of their behavior.
Conclusion
Both the rehabilitative and retribution theory of punishment have social and philosophical implications. The rehabilitative theory seeks to help the offender become a member of society. The retributive theory seeks to make the offender pay for the offense to society. Both address important social issues. The theories both seek justice and look to deter future crime. The theories do, however, have very distinct attributes and little similarities. Under the rehabilitative theory of punishment, an offender is treated in order to return to society as a law abiding citizen. Under the retribution theory of punishment, the offender is punished for the harm that he or she imposed on others and on society. Although both theories are followed in varying degrees across the world, there has been no agreement on which theory better serves the individual or society.
References
Haist, M. (2009). Deterrence in a Sea of Just Deserts: Are Utilitarian Goals Achievable in a World of Limiting Retributivism. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3). Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7333&context=jclc
Meyer, J. (1968, December). Reflections on Some Theories of Punishment. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 59(4). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1141839
Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2010). Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice. Internet Journal of Criminology.
Theories of Punishment. (2016). Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/9576/Punishment-THEORIES-PUNISHMENT.html
