Criminal Law
Introduction
This paper looks at the claim by Cullen and Gilbert (1982) that “Rehabilitation should be the major goal of any correctional system” (p. 5) and seeks to determine if rehabilitation is the most efficient method to attenuate crime. From the onset of the 20th century, efforts to combat crime have seen a rise in the implementation of rehabilitation as a preferred philosophy or methodology enacted by the justice system in order to reduce this societal challenge. The treatment of criminals was perceived as both efficient in terms of crime prevention and also the treatment of offenders was considered a more humane way of processing them back into society.
More recently in the United States, both conservative and liberal viewpoints have posed different arguments concerning how crime can be reduced. On the one hand, the conservative ‘right’ considered rehabilitation as a relaxation of discipline and punishment towards the criminal element in society, thereby such a correctional method as counter-productive to enabling justice to be implemented. On the other hand, the liberal viewpoint has leaned towards the rights of the offenders suggesting the rehabilitation acts against them. The conservative’s view held that very few, if any offender treatments in reality reduced the risk of offenders repeating illegal activities therefore this correctional strategy was ultimately ineffective. The conservative point of view also argued that “punishment-orientated programs” (Cullen and Gendreau 2000, p. 110) were more effective as a deterrent against crime. The liberals believed that the criminal not the crime should be the primary focus of correctional personnel and the justice system.
Discussion
Cullen et al. (2000) suggest that the implementation of correctional methods and practice should be derived from established evidence that supports the utilization of some rehabilitation programs; this based on the assumption that some of these programs work better than others. They add that certain rehabilitation policies are intervention based and as such these policies can be seen as proactive measures rather than correctional measures based on reaction to criminality. Cullen et al. (2000) point out that research evidence shows that in more recent times, the majority of citizens prefer the criminal or offender to both be punished and be rehabilitated. This tends to favor the more conservative standpoint and hardly satisfies the liberal more humane approach to the problem.
Their research study further found that a goal of rehabilitation enacted by correctional personnel should be the promotion of public safety. This extends beyond Cullen and Gilbert’s earlier referred to claim pertaining to rehabilitation being the goal of correctional procedures. Here, the thesis extends to rehabilitation as allowing a safe environment for society as a whole thereby inferring that the goal of a correctional system is directed at public safety. However, Cullen et al. (2000) qualify their bias towards rehabilitation by maintaining that the validity of rehabilitation programs is only enabled when measured against their effectiveness in attenuating crime and redirecting the offender back into the mainstream of society and an environment free of criminality.
Research also contends that Zero Tolerance is a methodology employed by a whole host of personnel employed to attenuate rising crime. This terminology is now utilized as a means to ensure both “strong measures and clear resolve” (Newburn and Jones 2007, p. 222), such seen as a way to maintain control over crime and the criminal element. This was exemplified within the Reagan era in which the existence of narcotics was seen as a primary threat to the wellbeing of American society and as such efforts were directed at both those selling drugs and also those that were determined as ‘users’. The term ‘Zero Tolerance’ was viewed as a measure to be enforced against even casual users thereby being seen as pertaining to zero tolerance. History has since showed that this policy has not led to a decrease in crime but rather has pushed the criminality underground; an environment that has allowed the drug trade to prosper and grow.
The term ‘Zero Tolerance’ was not just limited to US law enforcement but was also taken up by the Metropolitan Police in the United Kingdom in the 1990s. A campaign was launched in which effort was directed at “minor infractions and incivilities as on major crimes” (Newburn et al. 2007, p. 224). This meant that minor crimes such as loitering or drunkenness previously considered by UK law enforcement as “trivial or irrelevant” (p. 224) were rigorously punished however, many police personnel and public at large perceived this correctional strategy as “a misnomer” (p. 227) and duly claimed that such a correctional or policing tactic as “targeted intolerance” (p. 227). Newburn et al. (2007) further noted that questions were raised regarding the long term effectiveness of zero tolerance as a crime prevention strategy and further questioned the rationality behind the costs of such actions in terms of economic and social costs.
Weakening the argument supporting the above more long term ‘intolerant’ approach, is research which supports the idea that such punitive measures are an effective correctional methodology. Research contends that new discourse follows the idea that the “language of probability and risk increasingly replaces earlier discourses of clinical diagnosis” (Feeley and Simon 1992, p. 450). They point out that the issue of risk to society is given preference to the facilitation of rehabilitation as a goal of governmental correctional systems, and as such the element of control over the risk factor is brought into play as a determining factor. This is especially relevant within the correctional systems in the implementation of control over internal systems and the processes that are derived from them.
Therefore, these more punitive-orientated measures are targeted at all offenders as a part of the criminality problem not as individuals needing assistance to rehabilitate themselves. One possibility that may contribute to the categorization of these offenders relates to social inequality. This phenomenon is exemplified by the viewpoint held by an increasingly growing sector of society who perceives that they are disadvantaged within the economic and social infrastructure existent within Western society. This viewpoint has led to the creation of a social divide which is described as “inevitable and impervious” (Feeley et al. 1992, p. 469) to intervention.
They further note that the gap between this segment of society and correctional systems has driven a more punitive approach as an answer to the challenge posed by crime. They also liken the above scenario as an effort to enforce a “kind of waste management function” (p. 470) thereby providing a rationale for the disadvantaged to turn to a life of crime. In turn, this has led to the justice system and the correctional establishment to formulate categories of offenders; in part such action leading to the perception that offenders found within certain categories are beyond rehabilitation or that such correctional strategies are non-productive.
However, not all research supports the above punitive-orientated correctional ideology. Rather, the majority of research looks favorably at rehabilitation as a valid goal for correctional systems. An element pertaining to the rationale behind correctional activities on the part of law enforcement and the justice system relates to the concept of ‘Recidivism’. This concept refers to the inability of an offender to change their lifestyle and behavior away from their previous criminal practice despite attempts by correctional personnel to intervene or rehabilitate the offender. Yet, Lipsey and Cullen (2007) cast doubt on the more punitive form of corrective action and argue that even though sanctions or punishment may allow an improvement in the reduction of crime, figures suggest that that the majority of punitive approaches enabled an increase recidivism or higher “reoffense rates” (p. 297).
The above study conducted by Lipsey et al. (2007) pointed out that the justice system incorporates a dual functionality in terms of acting as a deterrent against crime. The first function allows the threat of punishment to act as a deterrent to those thinking about crime, or potential criminals. Therefore, the risk imposed by the threat of detection and subsequent arrest serves as an instrument of deterrence. However, while this is viewed as a positive contribution to the attenuation of crime in general, a more specific analysis determines that punishment or the threat thereof “has little or no effect” (p. 299) pertaining to the advent of recidivism in the offender.
In terms of rehabilitation, Lipsey et al. (2007) discovered that treatments derived on more thorough developed theory enabled a more effective attenuation of recidivism, whereas theory has been less developed regarding the area of deterring criminal activity by potential offenders (those not possessing any criminal record). Their study found that the reduction of recidivism in the offender was better served by the employment of multidimensional correctional strategies such as “treatment foster care, multisystemic therapy, family therapy, treatment for sex offenses, and cognitive-behavioral therapy” (p. 307). They pointed out that traditional research leans towards a form of treatment that is generic in nature whereas in reality the programs that seem to achieve better results in terms of attenuating recidivism are based on a more manual approach and are multi-systemized as detailed above.
Their research study also found that no one rehabilitative therapy or treatment can be guaranteed to attain anticipated results. Rather results can be better achieved by specifically allocating treatment or therapy that has been specifically designed for a specific problem area, such as drug abuse. This is exemplified by the utilization of educational based intervention or individualized counseling strategies that are directed at directing the offender away from dependency on narcotics or from selling drugs to create an income. Lipsey et al. (2007) look at the concept of ‘no one size fits all’ as applicable to rehabilitation programs as a common approach to recidivism or the utilization of “magic bullets” (p. 310) is meaningless unless specific treatment is allocated to the intervention that has been derived from proven results in specific areas of criminality.
Regarding rehabilitation in the form of an intervention approach, their study found that the monitoring of application was instrumental in ascertaining its effectiveness. In addition, the ability to monitor its effectiveness was also dependent in part on the number of times the approach was used. In turn, they found that the quantity of interventions directly impacted the extent that recidivism was attenuated in the offender. Furthermore, early interventions were seen as investment programs that were cost effective when measured against the costs involved in confining the offender to imprisonment. These early intervention initiatives are viewed within the public domain as allowing such offenders the opportunity to experience an enhanced lifestyle while simultaneously facilitating the likely scenario of a safer environment for general society (Lanier 2010).
.
Therefore, the public views a more balanced approach in which the more serious offenders such as those engaged in serious criminal activities such as selling of drugs or capital crimes to be subjected to more punitive corrective measures. Notwithstanding, there is also “ample ideological room” (p. 316) within the public consciousness in which equal if not more emphasis is placed on those offenders defined as engaged in less serious offences to be provided with a more focused early intervention approach thereby leading to improved lifestyle choices for the offender and an enhancement of public safety (Poyner 1993).
.
Reiner (2009) contends that “social democratic criminology” (p. 19) facilitates a measure of equality in how correctional systems are implemented and that a more representative form of rehabilitation should be created by the justice system that is more responsive offenders that are derived from a socially deprived environment referred to earlier. Furthermore, unless the basic causation of crime is not addressed the goal of rehabilitation will be increasingly less likely correctional objectives. Reiner (2009) further argued that it was morally unacceptable for the offender based within a socially challenged environment to be served a more punitive form of correction than that allocated to the “criminal activities of corporations and states, inflicting far greater harms and cruelties” (p. 38). Therefore, the goal of rehabilitation should lean towards the socially deprived offender in terms of the risk to society. As such, research argues that corporate crime potentially incorporates a much higher level of harm to society therefore it can be argued that corporate criminality possesses the ability to adversely affect public safety. Allowing correctional systems to address such social inequality will serve to promote “new conceptions of social inclusion, partnership, restoration and moralisation” (Muncie 2006, p. 770). Supporting this rationale, other research warns that a “plethora of evidence demonstrates that widening inequality is associated with more serious crime” (Reiner 2013, p. 176).
Modern criminology pertains not only to explaining the rationale behind why an offender commits criminal acts but also to that of the opportunity allowing crime to be enacted. Research maintains that despite the “particular psychological or social influences” Clarke 1997, p. 2) that can explain why the offender or groups of offenders commits criminal acts, another aspect pertaining to the study of modern criminology is the ability to remove the opportunity to commit crime or to enable a protective environment that is preventative in nature. This preventative side of correctional systems is perhaps under-utilized as an early interventionist approach that removes or lessens the need to provide correctional systems or personnel. Therefore, such preventative methods can be viewed as targeting situational backgrounds or environments that facilitate the need for correctional measures. Moreover, rather than attempt to rehabilitate the individual, modern criminology is designed in part to rehabilitate an environment that provides a breeding ground both in terms of opportunity and for potential offenders.
Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) describe the ‘Good Lives Model’ (GLM) as a valid correctional mechanism to assess the correctional ability of rehabilitation to attenuate criminal activity. They point out that by facilitating personal aspirations and fulfillment such can be seen as “positive, strengths based and restorative model of rehabilitation” (p. 735). Their rationale claims that by enhancing the offender or potential offender’s lifestyle such will allow the reduction in the need to facilitate reactive correctional measures. This supports and correlates to earlier sourced literature which has noted that both social and environmental factors play a part in the rehabilitation process. Moreover, the restorative model indicates the need to rehabilitate the offender rather than allocating punitive measures.
In addition, they also support earlier reference to the risk factor in that a rehabilitation program should be designed to address the offender’s risk level rather than focus on the crime. They further maintain that the extent of treatment allocated to the offender should be directly proportionate to their level of risk and that a high risk offender, such as one who is prone to recidivism, be allocated an increased proportionate measure of rehabilitation. In addition, they suggest that the offender’s needs also should be factored into the correctional analysis. If the offender committed the crime due to the need to survive or a rationale of desperation then such rehabilitation should be tailored or specifically designed to address such rationale or needs. On the other hand, if the offender committed an offense due to ‘wants’ rather than ‘needs’, or did not need to commit a crime in order to function, such a situational aspect also needs to be factored into the correctional systems. Additionally, the ability of the offender to understand and absorb the rehabilitation will need to be assessed prior to enacting such correctional measures; in other words, to ascertain the extent of the offender’s response and evaluate if the response is maximized in terms of results.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that in balance most of the peer reviewed sourced literature supported rehabilitation as a valid goal for correctional systems. However, while some of the findings have supported the idea of punitive correctional methods, the majority of the literature has pointed to different areas pertaining to rehabilitation. This includes areas such as the economic and social environment, specific applications to address specific needs, public safety and the element of risk of re-offense (recidivism), cost or impact of crime (individual minor crime or corporate serious crime), multi-systemic therapy, quantitative evaluation of treatment to correlate with seriousness of crime and risk, and early intervention based rehabilitation such as determining the causation of crime and preventative strategies removing the opportunity for criminal activity.
References
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., and Wormith, J. S 2011, The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model. Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755.
Clarke, R. V. G. (Ed.) 1997, Situational crime prevention (pp. 53-70). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Cullen, F. T., and Gendreau, P 2000, Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal justice, 3(109-175).
Cullen, F. T., and Gilbert, K. E 1982, Reaffirming rehabilitation. Routledge.
Feeley, M. M., and Simon, J 1992, The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474.
Lanier, M. M 2010, Epidemiological criminology (EpiCrim): Definition and application. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 2(1), 63-103.
Lipsey, M. W., and Cullen, F. T 2007, The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci., 3, 297-320.
Muncie, J 2006, Governing young people: Coherence and contradiction in contemporary youth justice. Critical social policy, 26(4), 770-793.
Newburn, T., and Jones, T 2007, Symbolizing crime control Reflections on Zero Tolerance. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 221-243.
Poyner, B 1993, What works in crime prevention: An overview of evaluations. Crime prevention studies, 1, 7-34.
Reiner, R 2009, Beyond risk: A lament for social democratic criminology. Oxford University Press.
Reiner, R 2013, Who governs? Democracy, plutocracy, science and prophecy in policing. Criminology and criminal justice, 13(2), 161-180.
