The Development of Offender Rehabilitation into the British Criminal Justice System - Report Example

The Development of Offender Rehabilitation into the British Criminal Justice System, from Birth to the 1990s. Introduction A concise definition of rehabilitation is elusive since rehabilitation can be seen as an objective as well as a process or set of practices. The concept of offender rehabilitation has a symbolic dimension as it implies restoration to previous status. The term also implies behavioural change, “for the better,” whereby interventions minimize the inclination, desire, or necessity to offend. After the process, the rehabilitated offender returns to the former status of a law-abiding citizen. Expectations on the offender lie in the ability to shed off the negative label of lawbreaker and re-establish back into the society after an episode of exclusion (Robinson & Crow 2009, p.6). Rehabilitation in the context of punishment or penal sanctions can be viewed in diverse lens. The first perception is rehabilitation and diversion, whereby the criminal justice system circumvents prosecution or criminal sanctions to the offender. Employment of diversion schemes is primarily when the offender is a juvenile or mentally disordered offender. The offender is offered guidance on the sources of help or treatment type intervention as a substitute to prosecution. The second view is rehabilitative punishment, in which the sentence of the court mirrors a wish to bring rehabilitation to the offender. In this case, the rehabilitative sentencing is grounded in consequentiality. Rehabilitation aims at minimizing the possibility of re-offending by establishing changes within the offender. The core mandate of rehabilitation is to transform the offender’s social circumstances, attitude, and behavior in order to avert reoffending (Emsley 2005, p.10). Growth of Offender Rehabilitation, 18th and 19th century The concept of offender rehabilitation gained prominence towards the end of the 19th century and flourished through the mid-twentieth century. However, it underwent an eclipse in the 1970’s. However, it was revitalized towards the end of the 20th century. Attempts to rehabilitate offenders preceded mainstream positivist criminology. Alexander Maconochie is the “father of parole.” His model aped that of Walter Crofton who had created a system of inmate discipline that permitted inmates to earn an early release. Maconochie managed the British penal colony on Norfolk Island in 1840, located in the South Pacific. He classified criminals into groups and instituted a marking system. The first stage was penal stage in which offenders were supervised closely while engaging in hard labour. Exhibits of irreproachable behavior and industry earned the offender marks. Upon amassing of adequate marks, the prisoner was upgraded into the next stage. The second stage, known as social stage, incorporated working and living in small groups of people. The stage was characterized by low supervision on the offenders, but they still earned marks, which determined their promotion into the final stage. The final stage, known as individual stage, featured the inmate being given individual work. However, inmates risked being moved back to preceding stages if found guilty of misconduct or laziness. Offenders who demonstrated exemplary behavior as well as industry in due course earned a ticket of leave or conditional pardon. The released offenders were reintegrated back into the mainstream population (Wright 2009, p.2). The late 18th and 19th centuries witnessed carrying out of substantial reforms critical to British penal system. During this time, the industrial revolution was gaining steam, and there was a radical shift from absolutism to enhanced democratic forms of government (Philip 1999, p. 212). Similarly, the idea of imprisonment as a form of punishment gained prominence. This contrasted earlier prison utility whereby offenders awaited trial or deportation. The development of offender rehabilitation into the British justice system can be perceived as a succession of emerging peculiarities taking place at various points in time. These included classical to positivist, corporal to carceral, and carceral to community. Classical to Positivist The history of rehabilitation of offenders in Britain matches with the appearance and development of positivist criminology in the late 19th century. Positivist approach placed more attention on offenders as markedly different from non-offenders. This approach is anchored in the view that, factors beyond an individual’s control, determine offending behaviour. This contrasts classical view of criminology, which holds that offenders have command over their behavior; they decide to commit crimes and can be dissuaded by the threat of punishment (Droz 2000, p. 19). Classical theorists highlight the importance of reasoning, justice, and uniformity of sentencing. Corporal to Carceral Another phenomenal development that influenced offender rehabilitation in Britain was the shift from corporal to carceral punishment. This took place towards the closing stages of the 18th century. Before this time, the universal way of dealing with criminals was by physical torture as well as hard labour. Offenders faced ruthless punishment such as whipping. The utility of prisons was mainly punishment to offenders through retribution and deterrence. Carceral culture detailed punishment and discipline that became internalized and directed to the constitution. It also accommodated rehabilitation of subjects when necessary. Thus, carceral punishment represented a juxtaposition of punitive and the positive (Marsh, Cochrane & Melville 2004, p. 18). Carceral to Community Carceral punishment was synonymous with mass incarcerations of populations, which led to its loss of favour. Community sentences arose out of efforts to decongest the penitentiaries. Community system offers alternatives to sentences such as prison, probation, fines, and community service. Prison sentences include both determinate as well as indeterminate sentences. They also incorporate suspended sentences and probation. This is where the offender’s sentence is put on hold provided the offender complies fully with obligations. Gladstone Report of 1895 Gladstone report set the tone for penal policy in Great Britain. The report affirmed the centrality of prison, which serves a deterrent function as well as steers the rehabilitative ideal. This ideal was prominent in early years of 20th century up to mid twentieth century when it started to take a dip. The report detailed that prisons should turn their inmates out better people than they previously were. The recommendations of the report were taken by two enthusiastic reformers of that time, Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise and Alexander Paterson. The reforms made penitentiary institutions friendlier to the inmates. The report also cited the role that education and productive labour plays. The report held that reform of offenders should bear the same weight as deterrence in the penal code (Hostettler 2009, p. 167). Early to mid 20th century Rehabilitative Ideal During the 1950’s and 1960’s, positivism was the overriding criminological explanation in Britain. In fact, the relationship between rehabilitation and positivism can be conceived as dependent. The approach also incorporated the treatment model, which mirrored a widespread belief that both the root and the solution for crime would eventually be discovered. This would relieve the society of the deep-seated problem of crime, which is pervasive. This is what came to be referred as rehabilitative ideal. However, the treatment model did not hold for long due to the emergence of the neo-classical perspective of offending behavior. The fresh approach rekindled the representation of rational offender. Choice theory, which gained prominence during the 1970’s, holds that criminals are rational actors who meditate their crimes, dread punishment, and merit punishment for their offenses. The theory also holds that opportunity and means play a prominent role in motivating the crimes. The surfacing of this theory heralded a lot of attack on rehabilitation of criminals (May, Minor, Ruddel, & Matthews 2008, p.3). However, the resurgence of neo-classical approach on criminology also fueled optimism in rehabilitation. In England and Wales, the symbolic restoration of an offender is at the heart of the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The recommendations of a commission, which had been assembled at the beginning of 1970’s, shaped the installation of the Act. The core mandate of the committee was to interrogate the problems of a criminal record to rehabilitated persons. The critical assessments centered on people who offend once, or limited times, honour the penalty that courts impose on them, and who eventually settle down to become diligent and upright citizens (Maguire, Morgan & Reiner 2007, p.178). The Act factored in associated stigma, which accompanies criminal convictions as well as obstructions erected with respect to finding work. The committee tasked with coming up with recommendations for rehabilitation of offenders rooted rehabilitation laws. The laws would take the majority of old convictions as “spent and irrelevant” hence, enabling social reintegration of the offender. Rehabilitation as a modern concept arising from development of imprisonment as an alternative to physical punishment is defeating. The loss in fortunes of rehabilitation and subsequent ideological vacuum led to the phrase “nothing works,” which concisely exhibited the collapse of penal confidence (Jehle & Wade 2006, p.152). References List Droz, N. (2000). Crime, history & societies, International Association for the History of Crime and Criminal Justice, 4(2), pp.19-22. Emsley, C. (2005). Crime and society in England, 1750-1900, London, Longman. pp.10 Hostettler, J. (2009). A history of criminal justice in England and Wales, Hampshire, Waterside Press. pp. 167-182. Jehle, J. & Wade, M. (2006). Coping with overloaded criminal justice systems: The rise of prosecutorial, London, Springer. pp. 152-160. Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (2007). The Oxford handbook of criminology, Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 178. Marsh, I., Cochrane, J. & Melville, G. (2004). Criminal justice: Introduction to philosophies, theories and practice, London, Routledge. pp. 18. May, D., Minor, K., Ruddel, R. & Matthews, B. (2008). Corrections and the criminal justice system, London, Jones and Bartlett. pp. 3-19. Philip, R. (1999). Crime and power: A history of criminal justice system 1688-1998, London, Longman. pp. 212 Robinson, G. & Crow, I. (2009). Offender rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice, London, Sage. pp. 6-10. Wright, F. (2009). The police and the public: Some thoughts on the British system of justice, Wildside Press. pp. 2-10. Read More