Punishment Versus Rehabilitation

penalization vs. Rehabilitation Brenda A. Dove AJS/502 Version I September 10, 2012 John V. Baiamonte, Jr. Ph. D. Punishment vs. Rehabilitation Punishment versus Rehabilitation, on that point has been many debates on the stiffness of punishment comp atomic number 18d to the effectiveness of re invigoratedal of convicted offenders in prison and under community supervision. If an individual commits a crime sound enough to warrant incarceration, then the individual is sent to prison as a form of punishment.While incarcerated the individual whitethorn select the opportunity to generate rehabilitation. Does it mean that the individual allow be rehabilitated? One can further imagine. This is a debatable issue. Is punishment or rehabilitation more effective in combating crime? These findings will be discussed in this paper in more depth. According to DeLuca, Miller, and Wiedemann (1991), well-nigh prison facilities use punishment as the main approach, such as Texas. Massachusetts and Connecticut stress rehabilitation, and rough facilities use punishment and rehabilitation, such as Michigan.There is currently no prison facility that focuses on incarceration as a petty detail of punishment followed by a long period of community-based rehabilitation and stringent supervision (para. 6). Rehabilitation wants to educate individuals nearly the falsely choices that they have rack up and help encourage these individuals to make better choices in the future. Rehabilitation recognizes that offenders may be victims of social economic conditions, and wants to help offenders learn from their mistakes, with the intention of not committing crimes when they get eat upd.According to Logan, and Gaes (1993), Meta-analysis is the study of other studies, and in this case, the studies test the effectiveness of assorted programs of correctional intercession. Advocates of rehabilitation remember that meta-analysis can be used to tally deposits of prior research, to revea l hidden veins of effective treatment not necessarily revealed by individual studies (para. 2). According to Logan, and Gaes (1993), Each study is coded on a deed of variables such as characteristics of the research design, characteristics of the subjects studied, and haracteristics of the treatment applied. In theory, by combining and reanalyzing studies, meta-analysis may be able to separate treatment do from differences due to uncontrolled characteristics of the subjects, or other deficiencies of research design, even if those sources of defect were not controlled adequately by any of the primary studies taken respectively (para. 3). According to Logan, and Gaes (1993), It may not be worthwhile to debate whether meta-analysis or other research has identified what whole caboodle by way of prisoner rehabilitation.Engaging in such debate presupposes that effectiveness, or utility, is the crucial issue in discussing the value of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system by and large and inside prisons in particular. Underlying the zeal with which meta-analysts claim to have proved scientifically that slightlything plant after all is the implicit disceptation that because rehabilitation can be made more scientific it is on that pointfore twain a viable and a desirable alternative to punishment (para. 4).According to Logan, and Gaes (1993), The meta-analysts believe that we turned absent from treatment and toward punishment because Martinson and others convinced everyone that naught works therefore, convincing people of the opposite should help to turn them back in the proper indemnity direction (para. 5). According to Rhine, Smith, and Jackson (1991), In 1974, Robert Martinson published What kit and caboodleQuestions and Answers about Prison Reform, an article describing research on the effectiveness of correctional treatment.Martinson made several key points about a massive reassessment of research on correctional treatment. His prime(pren ominal) point was that the research showed that there was not much good news about rehabilitative programs. Some programs worked, however they were few and far between (para. 1). The second point, which was largely ignored, was that the eccentric of the program implementation and research was so poor that it was hard to ask out many strong conclusions. The nuances of his findings were lost, and the research was presented as showing that correctional treatment programs did not work at rehabilitating criminal offenders.The infamous sound gaminess that emerged from this was that Nothing Works when it comes to rehabilitation (para. 3). In fact, the actual results said no one approach works with everybody. Despite the fact that the sound hustle was an exaggeration, the message carried great influence in legislative and public form _or_ system of government debates and actions. The Nothing Works message swept the political and public policy arenas and correctional programs and pract ice. Rehabilitation programs and services were greatly reduced from the correctional decorate (para. ). This belief indicated that if offenders could not be rehabilitated then they should be punished and it was season to get tough on crime. Within a relatively short time parole was attacked and the individual approach of indeterminate sentencing, or release by the authority of a parole board was abolished in 16 states (Rhine, Smith, and Jackson, 1991) and some form of determinate sentencing was adopted in all 50 states (Mackenzie, 2000). According to department of Corrections, (n. d. ), However, not all hope was lost.A small number of vocal critics of the nothing works doctrine actively challenged the assumptions and empirical license presented by Martinson and colleagues. Foremost in this debate were a number of marriage American researchers, including Ted Palmer, Paul Gendreau, Don Andrews and Robert Ross. At the same time as Martinson was announcing that very few things had any effect on recidivism, Palmer (1975) was reanalyzing the same entropy and finding that more things worked than the original analysis showed (this position was also support by Thorntons (1987) reanalysis of a selection of studies used by Lipton and co-workers in 1975).Similarly, Gendreau and Ross (1979) and Ross and Gendreau (1980) were reporting on research that documented positive outcomes, directly countering the argument that nothing worked. Perhaps the most damaging blow to the nothing works position was delivered by Robert Martinson himself. In 1979 he wrote a paper which adjudge errors in the earlier reviews and reported on a number of new studies which demonstrated that some things did work. On the basis of substantial contradictory evidence, Martinson recanted the nothing works statements made in his 1974 article (para. ). Incarceration is for those offenders that have broken the justice and as a result they have received imprisonment. It punishes offenders for what th ey have do wrong and acknowledges the victim by giving them justice for the wrong that has been perpetrate against them by the offender. Incarceration allows the offender to be confined and take some form of initiative to seek help and learn how to change their behavior. If an offender wants to change their liveness around, they can seek the necessary resources to make those changes. Offenders have to want to change their lives around.If offenders do it simply because they are made to do so then, they will eventually be back in prison. It is about changing the mindset and making a decision to turn away from wrongdoing and make the right decision to make positive choices. Punishment is more effective in combating crime. It helps offenders to understand what they have done wrong and accept accountability and responsibility for their behavior. Punishment is a constructive endeavor, not a destructive endeavor. Punishment is a positive good alternatively than a negative evil. It requ ires the right people with the right attitudes.If prison officials are hostile, cruel, and inappropriate towards inmates, it defeats the purpose. Prison officials need to be professional and firm but respectful towards inmates. If inmates are not treated fairly in prison, they will find it hard to understand that it is fair for them to be incarcerated in the first place. In order for inmates to accept their punishment they must understand that it is just, not malicious. The duties and responsibilities of prisons are to manage and handle their facilities to the best of their ability.In closing, it is not the responsibility of prisons to reform, rehabilitate, or reintegrate offenders into society. Each inmate needs to be responsible for their induce wellbeing, social correction, and their future conduct. While it may not be an thriving task for any inmate, they have to make the decision to change their life around. It has to be there decision no one can do it for them. They must hav e the right mindset and be willing to make changes for the better. References Bureau of Justice Assistance. (n. d. ). Nothing Works, Retrieved on September 10, 2012, from, https//www. bja. gov/Publications/APPA_PSN. df Department of Corrections. (n. d. ). Historical Background The What Works? Debate, Retrieved on September 10, 2012, from, http//www. corrections. govt. nz/research/the-effectiveness-of-correctional-treatment/historical-background. hypertext markup language Federal Bureau of Prisons. (1993). Meta-Analysis Rehabilitation of Punishment, Retrieved on September 10, 2012, from, http//www. bop. gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/cond_envir/oreprlogangaes. pdf subject Criminal Justice Reference Service. (1991). Punishment vs. Rehabilitation A final cause for revising sentencing practices, Retrieved on September 10, 2012, from,