anti-carceral phiosophy. To say otherwise (i.e. The purpose of prison is to show the wrongdoing of criminals and that what they did was wrong (rehabilitation vs. retribution). Few people would question whether 13- and 14-year-olds need guidance. It is the most valuable ideological justification for punishment, for it alone promotes the humanizing belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Related Documents. Which approach has greater regard for the offender?Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of coincidence. Posted on August 29, 2010. Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems. Many programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminal behaviour. Summer Releases These are the first releases of the year, framing the start of competitive training with STRUCTURE (history of the resolution) and STRATEGY (status quo of the resolution). to say that criminals are merely the product of their unfortunate circumstances) would be an insult to ideas of free will, human autonomy and individual choice – it would be to deny the possibility of human actors making good decisions in the face of hardship. Which approach has greater regard for the offender?Rehabilitation has another important value – it recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that we can help unfortunate persons who have been overcome by their circumstance. These three utilitarian ideas are in turn very different from the idea of ‘retribution’ – which is not primarily about reducing re-offending. This simplistic notion of vengeance is primitive if not barbaric, and should not be encouraged in society. of crimes. Even if it only worked for some people, is that not still worthwhile? Examples of … The rehabilitative ideal alone conveys the message that the state has an obligation to help those who fall short of the standards of behavior it has set. There are other important reasons as well: such as to convey to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged. It is no different with rehabilitative programs – we should certainly support them if they can be shown to work. Our focus should be on rehabilitation. The assumption that punishment is retributive sets up the idea of punishment versus rehabilitation, whereas corrective punishment can lead to rehabilitation that provides education, deals with substance abuse and encourages spirituality. The sad answer is that, since one can never tell if an offender is “cured”, having “rehabilitation” as the goal forces the decision to be made be based on statistical ‘risk factors’ like whether the person belongs to a racial group that is statistically likely to reoffend, or whether the person belongs to an economic underclass that makes him statistically likely to reoffend. *1983 , Richard A. Posner, The economics of justice m p.208: *:Whereas retribution focuses on the offender's wrong, retaliation focuses on the impulse of the victim (or of those who sympathize with him) to strike back at the offender. By contrast, the rehabilitation model of sentencing is expressed through strategies designed to reform the offender's character. On the other hand it can give offenders a different or tougher sentence to help them reform, if they are less likely to reform.Retribution, by contrast, merely advocates “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. They deserve at least that much. Which is a better general justifying aim for punishment?A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should treat the offending conduct as wrong. It is the most valuable ideological justification for punishment, for it alone promotes the humanizing belief in the notion that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Such programs include cognitive-behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent offender to think and react differently to potential ‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling programmes, and some sex-offender treatment programs.The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by penological standards, massive [see resources above]. He credits his wife Katie for “staying with me and saving my life.” With rehabilitation we can can incarcerate while providing the necessary means for the convicted to live a healthy ad productive life after prison. It is also important when it comes to actually carrying out the punishment.