Is the Purpose of Prisons to Punish Criminals - Essay Example

IS THE PURPOSE OF PRISONS TO PUNISH CRIMINALS, OR TO HELP THEM? By Location Is the Purpose of Prisons to Punish Criminals, or to Help them? Introduction There had been an ensuing debate and controversy surrounding the role of prisons. Some people and philosophers view prisons as institutions that impart discipline to criminals through punishment. On the other hand, some theorists are of the opinion that prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals in a bid to prepare them for successful reintegration into the society. A close analysis of both of these views reveals that both have a level of efficiency depending on the context in which they are applied. On one hand, the American society sought to do away with the term prison and replace it with correctional facility in a bid to reflect the emerging role of these institutions. However, there are some cases when punishment is applied as the most effective strategy in addressing criminals. This paper will explore factors that should prompt prisons to exhibit efforts towards rehabilitating prisoners. The paper will also analyze why the punitive approach proves more efficient in some situations. Prisons should Help Criminals There are many theories developed to explain why prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals rather than punishing them. Most of these theories surround a close analysis of the factors that prompted an individual to indulge in crime (Binder 2013, p. 296). A psychological analysis of the factors that prompt an individual to indulge in crime reveals that he or she may undergo effective therapy through rehabilitative programs, hence increasing the chances of transforming the individual. Without doubt, there is an existing complexity of the factors that motivate people towards crime. These complexities only seem to trigger controversy when considering the effectiveness of rehabilitation of criminals (Bierschbach & Bibas 2013, p. 407). If prisons are to help criminals, they must adopt a certain attitude and have the faith that it is possible to get the criminals back to the right track. One reason why criminals are locked in prisons is to protect the public from further criminal activities. Therefore, helping criminals in prison targets to help them transform and stay away from crime. Efforts of rehabilitation seek to convert criminals to better citizens who have the potential to contribute positively to the success of the society. After the effective transformation, then prisons can release the transformed criminals back to the society (Bierschbach & Bibas 2013, p. 411). After release into the society, there is the need for positive reintegration by the other members of the society. Governments that focus on rehabilitating criminals usually institute effective programs that foster positive transformation. In some prisons that have attained correctional tag, criminals have the opportunity to indulge in different activities such as vocational training, counseling and college education. The different programs put in place for rehabilitating criminals usually target the diverse needs of the criminals (Bierschbach & Bibas 2013, p. 423). For example, many sociologists have opined that juvenile delinquents deserve. According to research, many juveniles committing crime and ending up in prisons are below the age that qualifies them to receive fair trials in the court system. Psychological research has identified that the brain immaturity of adolescents makes them more prone to crime. Evident reveal that helping such juveniles through rehabilitation can transform them into better citizens. Considering that most of them have not completed their education, prisons have designed programs that ensure that juvenile delinquents can continue with their education. In other cases, the programs impart them with skills that they can use to contribute positively to the society (Otis 2014, p. 53). Even in the case of adult criminals, such rehabilitation through education and training can serve to empower them and hence make them become productive citizens. In the view of theorists supporting the argument that prisons should help criminals, rehabilitating them presents a higher level of efficiency that punishment. An additional argument posed by supporters of the view that prisons should help criminals is that every individual deserves a second chance. Although critics refute this, there is a justified rationality in offering an offender a chance to adopt a new perspective towards life. Having the believe that a criminal can change for the better and showing them the sense of positive transformation through counseling can motivate them towards the expected positive change (Elliott 2007, p. 204). Although the criminals make the choice to indulge in crime, some theorists opine that anyone can make a mistake and deserves an opportunity and be able to correct their mistakes. There is evidence suggesting that prisoners who undergo a rehabilitation period while serving their sentence present lower levels of possible re-arrest. This is in contrary to the case where prisoners do not receive any form of help in prisons. The lack of help makes them more likely to indulge in crime, even after the release. Available data also seem to suggest that the efforts exerted toward correction and rehabilitation of criminals present less occurrences of crime. With the view of protecting the society from the adverse effects of crime, prisons should embark on helping criminals to become better people. If they undergo a positive transformation, it means that the correctional system has succeeded in reducing crime and protecting the society. In other cases, criminals may need help in the form of health care (Chehtman 2010, p. 137). Tests conducted to confirm the mental state of criminals often reveal that some of them have indulged in excessive drug abuse or suffer a psychological disorder that motivated them to indulge in crime. Such criminals urgently require mental treatment. Any fair prison system would consider mental health care to such individuals in a bid to ensure that they become normal citizens. When Punishment Proves more Effective Although there is a strong argument that prisons should help criminals, there are some cases when punishment proves to be more effective. Punishment is not as negative as many people view it (Chehtman 2010, p. 139). In any case, the term punishment according to psychologists denotes the process that involves the presentation of a consequence to an individual after he or she exhibits a certain behavior. The presented consequence has the main purpose of minimizing the frequency with which the same behavior is likely to be repeated (Bierschbach & Bibas 2013, p. 444). Punishment may present an undesirable stimulus to the individual as a consequence of unwanted behavior. At other times, a punishment may involve the withdrawal of a desirable stimulus if an individual indulges in unwanted behavior. These two forms of punishment seek to achieve the same objective that of ensuring that unwanted behavior is never repeated. However, it takes some time before the unwanted behavior is stopped completely. Because of the undesirable stimulus presented as a consequence for bad behavior or the withdrawal of a desirable privilege serve as factors that motivate an individual to undergo behavioral change. The concept of punishment is one of the aspects defined by the famous psychologist named Skinner in his theory of operant conditioning (Robinson 2011, p. 1100). Viewed in this context, punishment can serve as a positive stimulant to behavioral change. Prisons seek to present criminals with punishment by either exposing them to the undesirable prison conditions whereby they lack the freedom and withdrawing the freedom of an individual to enjoy certain privileges. Being locked up in a prison institution is viewed to be a stimulus that should motivate the criminals to undergo behavioral change so that they can get back their freedom (Bierschbach & Bibas 2013, p. 416). The punishment varies in intensity and does not denote a single strategy applied by prisons in a bid to discourage criminals from repeating the crime. Many prisons have described multiple approaches that are used as for s of punishment presented to the criminals. Depending on the level of crime, punishment may be mild or very severe. In the worst cases, hardened criminals often face capital punishment which denies them the opportunity to continue living. There is a heated controversy surrounding capital punishment and the ethical perspectives that define it. However, capital punishment occurs in rare cases. Other forms of punitive measure are usually used on criminals in different prisons (Otis 2014, p. 52). From the psychological perspective of punishment, there is evidence that mild cases of punishment can prove highly effective in motivating an individual to adopt behavioral change. However, certain factors determine the efficiency of punishment. One of the salient factors that determine punishment efficiency is its frequency of application. Moreover, the immediacy with which punishment is applied determines whether it can prompt behavioral change. An additional factor that determines the efficiency of punishment is whether it is used alongside other strategies for reinforcing positive social behavior. Many people often view prisons as a severe mode of punishment. However, its efficiency depends on several factors. One of the identified factors is the reason behind a criminals motivation to commit crime. Several reasons have been described as potential motivations of crime such as social learning, dysfunctional cognitive thinking, biological predispositions, the strain of the capitalist society, psychological personality disorders, geographical locations and other social factors. Several factors are considered in the determination of the severity of punishment in different countries. In the American society for example, the severity of the punishment depends on the category of the offense committed, criminal history, demographic factors and the level of education. Age is also a critical consideration in the determination of the appropriate punishment. Punishment can prove effective if the individuals in prisons have the potential to carry out a rational examination of the potential consequences of their behavior. One of the consequences that they face is facing the painful prison experience. If they calculate the severity of this pain, then it can prompt behavioral change. People arguing in support of punishment have highlighted that criminals need to be taught a lesson and bear the consequences of their irresponsible behavior. When other measures targeting the rehabilitation have failed, then punishment becomes a preferred approach (Chehtman 2010, p. 143). Synthesis and Conclusion As highlighted above, there are benefits of adopting the punitive approach in prisons as well as integrating programs of helping the criminals. However, there is still an ensuing controversy concerning the most effective strategy of the two. On one hand, criminals who exhibit the potential to change to better citizens deserve an opportunity to receive either medical help or different forms of training that would impart them with relevant skills. Depending on the context used in understanding the efficiency of punishment, it can serve as an appropriate approach in prompting criminals to adopt behavioral change. Viewed in the psychological context, punishment does not present the negative connotation understood by many people. Since both approaches target to protect the society from further crime, it is logical to integrate them into the prison system. Bibliography Bierschbach, R, & Bibas, S 2013, Constitutionally tailoring punishment, Michigan Law Review, 112, 3, pp. 397-452, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Binder, G 2013, Authority to proscribe and punish international crimes†, University Of Toronto Law Journal, 63, 2, pp. 278-309, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Chehtman, A 2010, The Extraterritorial Scope of the Right to Punish, Law & Philosophy, 29, 2, pp. 127-157, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Elliott, L 2007, Security, Without Care: Challenges for Restorative Values in Prison, Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 2, pp. 193-208, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Otis, WG 2014, Intent-optional criminal statutes: a plea for reform, and a note of caution to reformers, Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 37, 1, pp. 51-56, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Robinson, PH 2011, The ongoing revolution in punishment theory: Doing Justice as Controlling Crime, Arizona State Law Journal, 42, 4, pp. 1089-1111, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 May 2014. Read More