In the history of criminal justice, there were various approaches to system’s functions and meaning of punishment in it. In the beginning of the modern criminal justice development, the main goal of punishment was to prevent crimes; therefore, laws and measures were strict and sometimes even unfair. This refers mainly to the times of the Wild West colonization and development of the first laws and institute of sheriffs’ service. In the last century, during the supremacy of liberal thought, an emphasis was placed on rehabilitating function of criminal justice and punishment itself. The prevalence of this approach in American system of criminal justice refers to 1960-70s. In 1980-90’s the shift was made towards punishment. The aim of the present paper is to emphasis the essence of each approach to punishment and to outline which types of sentences are more likely to be used in each approach.
Rehabilitating policy in criminal justice is based on the idea that offenders commit crimes because of an inability to accommodate in the society. Thus, society should not banish those individuals from its members only because they had followed the wrong path (Reid 59). In this context, crime is seen as a misdeed of an individual that needs help from the criminal justice system to improve and be guided for this improvement (Reid 64). This philosophy of improvement is based on the principle that an individual can change and still become an effective member of society. Subsequently, he does not need punishment and condemnation as tools of influence, but correction of his behavior and assistance in further facilitation into society (Jones & Weatherburn 17). From the perspective of crime treatment, rehabilitating policy aims at solving the very reason of crime commitment and not just punishing for its commitment (Williams 82).
Although in rehabilitating policy, just as in punitive one, all types of sentencing were applicable depending on the severity of a crime, still in each policy, preferences were given to some sentences over the other. The most popular types of sentencing in rehabilitating policy included probation, intensive supervision probation, incarceration in combination with rehabilitating programs, boot camps, house arrests, electronic monitoring and various fines (Phelps 37). Although the same types of sentences were used in punitive policy, the frequency of their application was different in rehabilitating policy (Reid 121). Probation and intensive supervision probation were considered to be the most useful for the introduction of additional rehabilitating programs, particularly those addressing substances abuse and anger management (Williams 159). Probational rehabilitating programs did not only make an individual follow laws and pay fines according to court’s decision; it also aimed at assisting this individual in resolution of personal problems through a qualified psychological support and rehabilitation to the socially acceptable mode of behavior (Jones & Weatherburn 22).
In case of juvenile delinquents, boot camps aimed at giving teens and young adults a sense of discipline and develop a proper mode of behavior. In this context, combination of physical and behavioral trainings aimed at changes of individual’s behavior but not due to the pressure of the outside world or system of justice in general. Behavioral correction was supposed to occur because of changes of individual’s self-perception and attitude to society in general (Jones & Weatherburn 26). The same principle was used in case of house arrests and electronic monitoring. In rehabilitating policy, the aim of those means was in making an individual think of his actions and changes his attitude to crimes.
The reason why rehabilitating approach was substituted by punitive one was not only due to the change in political environment, but a failure of policy to decrease crime rate and recidivism. In fact, in 1970-90, the crime rate increased significantly. The reason for rehabilitative approach’s failure is in its belief that most of offenders might change under certain conditions. In this context, theory did not take into account a broader analysis of socio-economic environment of crime commitment. In this case is meant the fact that, although an individual changed, the environment of his existence remained the same and he was most likely to return to the previous criminal activity (Phelps 38). Another limit of the policy was that it could not be applied to all offenders. While minor offenders could be rehabilitated, those who committed serious crimes were unlikely to change through rehabilitating programs; this also referred to passion crimes and serial killers (Reid 131).
Punitive policy has a couple of functions: deterrence, retribution and incapacitation of the criminal. The main function of punishment in the punitive policy is to deterrent individuals from committing crime for the first time or to discourage offenders from recidivism. This is conducted through addressing crime in a classic manner – “crime occurs when costs of misconduct are lower than benefits”; thus, in order to prevent crime, costs of crime commitment should exceed potential benefits (Reid 41). In this context, severe punishment and subsequent laws adoption have a certain preemptive function.
The deterrent function of punishment has two aspects – general and specific. General deterrence influences potential offenders through a vivid exemplar of offender’s sentence. Thus, the general public is abstained from crime commitment because of fear of the same implications as in case of a specific offender (Williams 83). On the other hand, specific deterrence aims at punishment of the offender for the committed crime and discouraging him from repetition of this crime in the future (Williams 85).
The second function of punishment is incapacitation. The central idea of this approach is that keeping offenders in the correction facility eliminates their possible threat to society, so they are incapable of committing crime while imprisoned (Phelps 36). The main strength of this function is that so far offenders remain imprisoned their threat to society is limited. On the other hand, when they are released, this threat continues to persist. It is most unlikely that sentence has any rehabilitating or correctional influence on offenders. The most vivid recent example is Anthony Sowell, “Cleveland Strangler”, who after 15-years imprisonment for kidnapping and an attempted rape, was released and killed 11 women through strangulation, previously raping them (Williams 139).
The retributive function of punitive policy is in making offenders pay for their crimes. In this case, justice is taking form of a fair and proportional payment for a committed crime. In this context, the strictness of punishment should correspond to the severity of the crime. Retributive function is essential not only for the offender to comprehend that he should pay for what he had done, but also for victims’ families to gain at least a minimal, moral satisfaction from the punishment (Jones & Weatherburn 12). In case of “Cleveland Strangler”, death penalty was the only justified punishment.
In case of punitive policy, types of sentences depend on crimes’ severity. Thus, the same sentences are used as in case of rehabilitation, but the main emphasis is placed on severe types like imprisonment and application of death penalty (Reid 176). Efficiency of one sentencing types over others is difficult to judge since they correspond to different types of crimes, and efficiency differs on case-to-case basis. The only 100% efficient and entirely deterrent is only one sentence – death penalty, but it cannot be justified and fair in all cases.
Although it may seem that punishment is more workable than rehabilitation, practical studies show that none of the approaches had effective influence on decrease of crime and recidivism rates, and that applying only one policy would benefit all. Thus, the most applicable is a combination of both approaches and their application depending on the severity of the crime and specific characteristics of an individual case. In any case, there is no golden formula for crime treatment, at least not yet.
Works Cited
Jones, Craig, G.A. & Weatherburn, D.J. “Willingness to Pay for Rehabilitation versus
Punishment to Reduce Adult and Juvenile Crime”. Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 46.1 (2011): 9-29. Print.
Phelps, M.S. Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: the Gap between Rhetotric and Reality in
U.S. Prison Programs. Law & Society Review, 45.1 (2011): 33-51. Print.
Reid, Sue Titus, Criminal Justice Essentials. West Sussex, PO: Wiley-Blackwell. 2011. Print.
Williams, Pual, J. Criminal Justice: Pro and Cons. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. 2011. Print.
