The Use of Rehabilitation as the Dominant Model for Corrections - Term Paper Example

The Use of Rehabilitation as the Dominant Model for Corrections What shall be done with various offenders? How should offenders be treated? Is society morally compelled to help offenders? Around these questions is the continuous debate as to which model could be most effective in corrections. Introduction Corrections are most prominent among state apparatuses built to institute social control (Mauer, 1996, p. 2) with the end view of ensuring peace and order. The manner by which corrections are used reflects how society understands criminals and criminal behavior. Particularly in America, corrections are crucial part of the justice system that what goals to emphasize, what programs to offer, and what model to follow are issues being continuously debated upon, especially so that number of offenders is in continuous rise, bleeding off American taxpayers millions of dollars just to maintain correctional facilities. The irony of the picture, wherein the victims’ (mostly taxpayers) money is spent for their offenders (mostly unemployed), also illustrates the dilemma of corrections as to which should be emphasized: retribution or rehabilitation? The answer to this illustrates how one understands criminal justice. Meaning, what should be the primary consideration in choosing a model for corrections: Would it be political, financial, practical, legal or ethical considerations? In other words, what is ethical may not be politically advantageous, may be too expensive, may not be legal or may be too hard to achieve. But are these considerations justifiable? To think as such is a mockery of criminal justice, because as Sherman (1981) explains with certainty, criminal justice decisions are primarily moral decisions (as cited in Gold, 2012, p. 12). To render justice then is upholding what is right. Within this premise, this paper argues for rehabilitation as the dominant model for corrections for various reasons as discussed below Corrections ought to rehabilitate rather than harden offenders Corrections are traditionally perceived to function primarily as an institution for the following four major goals. One is retribution – to justly punish offenders. Underlying this goal is the belief of ancient and biblical origin, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ (cited in Clear, Cole & Reisig, 2010, pp. 70-73), which means that every criminal offense deserves just punishment. Offenders should be punished according to the severity of their crime. Thus it would be unjust to give capital punishment to someone caught for simple misdemeanor, because the punishment is more severe than the crime committed. In the same way, it would be unjust to put simply on probation someone proven guilty of manslaughter, precisely because the punishment is too light for the crime committed. Another is deterrence – to prevent the repetition of crime. Underlying this goal is the belief that crime is a choice because man is a rational being, who thinks first before acting; thus, punishing criminals would discourage repetition of similar acts. Deterrence is believed to create both general and specific effect. General deterrence is achieved when society as a whole sees the consequence of the crime too risky to be repeated; while specific deterrence is achieved when the consequence of the crime discourages the offender to repeat the similar crime. Then, there is incapacitation – to physically isolate offenders from the community. Underlying this goal is the belief that locking-up offenders in jails would deny them the opportunity to commit further offense. Unlike retribution, incapacitation does not simply punish offenders but also considers the offender’s potential actions in the future. Lastly is rehabilitation – to renew offenders. Underlying this goal is the belief that offenders, who in the long run will return to society should be helped become better and productive citizens, for them not to become social problems and threats to communities again. (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 3-4; Clear, Cole & Reisig, 2010, pp. 70-73) Ultimately so, corrections are meant to reduce crime and offenders. These four goals generally illustrate two major competing models of correctional policy-making, which Stinchcomb identifies as the justice model and the medical model (cited in Petersilia, 2005, p. 114). The justice model, which the first three goals essentially emphasize, upholds retribution. In this model, corrections are mainly viewed as institutions to constrain and punish offenders. Meaning, punish the offender because it is what justice means; be tough on offenders because they ought to be taught a lesson for them not to repeat the crime; incarcerate offenders because they do not deserve to live freely. Such views only hold offenders solely accountable for their crimes. Society’s role is mainly understood as a whipping arm meant to discipline offenders. To Seiter and Kadela’s (2003) description, this model became prominent at the latter part of the 20th century. Prison programs are utilized no longer to primarily prepare inmates for future reintegration but more to keep them busy and redirect their energy to productive activities rather than making troubles inside. (p.363) Related to this, Weiman (2008) states that prisons are more perceived as inherently criminogenic. He furthers that to regard prisons as an inherent criminogenic institution fosters rather than correct criminal behaviors of convicted offenders. (p. 575) As one prisoner states: “This place just by being here is not going to correct you—I dont know why they call it the Department of Corrections” (cited in Lin, 2000, p. 3). What this model fails to recognize, is the root cause of the problem, which unless addressed, recidivism will always occur even how tough corrections maybe. On the other hand, the medical model upholds the fourth goal – rehabilitation. This model, which for the first part of the 20th century had taken center stage (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, p. 111) defines corrections, as the term connotes, more as institutions to treat rather than to punish offenders. Contrary to retribution, rehabilitation acknowledges the multi-factor causation of crimes, of which social factors are among them. In other words, criminal offenses as understood in its given context and offenders are perceived holistically. As Braswell (2012) states, crimes do not occur in a vacuum but within a given social milieu (p. 4). Thus society through the state should help rehabilitate offenders to be better citizens once they reintegrate in their own communities. As Walsh (2006) argues, it is only through rehabilitating convicted offenders that community can be safe from them once they reintegrate (p. 109). This Chilton (1988) defines is the public nature of criminal justice, whereby it does not simply keep the community safe from crime but also nurtures better citizens and educates community (p. 33). Essentially so, corrections ought to rehabilitate rather than harden offenders because to truly build a peaceful society, social institutions ought to humanize rather than dehumanize; social institutions ought to rebuild human lives rather than destroy; social institutions ought to create meaningful lives rather than traumatize and alienate. In other words, criminal justice cannot be effective by simply holding the offender accountable for the criminal offense committed but only when misdeeds are realized and corrected. Such can be achieved through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Makes Corrections Effective Social Tools to Bring About Peace and Order As defined earlier, the ultimate aim of corrections is to reduce crime offenders and the occurrence of crime in order to achieve peace and order. Although advocates of retribution model criticize the rehabilitation model to be ineffective, recent meta-analysis of a large collection of rehabilitation literature conducted Dowden and Andrews (2002) and Cullen and Gendreau’s (2000) assessment of correctional rehabilitation positively reaffirms rehabilitation to be the dominant model for corrections. Similarly Seiter and Kadela’s (2003) study of various specific correctional rehabilitation programs affirm their positive effects, in the sense that recidivism is reduced and offenders have been successfully reintegrated in the community. For example, their evaluation of seven vocational and work programs shows that offenders who participated in work release program had easily adjusted to the community and were less likely to go back to corrections. Vocational training and/or work release programs are found not only effective to lessen recidivism but can also be valuable in providing offenders skills they can utilize for employment once they exit from corrections. This is very important because once freed, ex-offenders’ common problem is finding a decent job and failing to find one could be a reason for them to commit crimes and be imprisoned again. In the same way, positive effects were also noted in drug rehabilitation, education programs, cognitive behavioral therapy for sex and violent offenders, halfway house programs, and prison prerelease programs (pp. 373-380). The positive effects of rehabilitation programs are in fact found despite their noted flaws. As Taxman, Perdoni and Harrison (2007) find in a national survey of prison, jails and correctional agencies they conducted: Though there are available drug treatment services and correctional programs for adult offenders, these appear to be inappropriate and not responsive to what this population needs. In other words, the failure of rehabilitation is not the model itself but how this model is utilized to respond to the general and specific needs of various types of offenders. In fact, even Cullen and Gendreau’s (2000) assessment of Martison’s “Nothing Works” – the essay that propelled retribution above rehabilitation as a correctional philosophy in the latter part of the 20th century – arrived at two important themes: correctional programs should be evidence-based and rehabilitation should be reaffirmed (p. 158). Their reaffirmation of rehabilitation is based on two important considerations, which this paper strongly supports: First, there is no solid evidence showing that punitive correctional programs/strategies indeed reduce recidivism or if not improve offenders in any measurable way. On the contrary, there is an array of evidences affirming the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs with therapeutic integrity not only in reducing recidivism but most importantly in improving the lives of ex-offenders. To put this first consideration strongly, to ignore rehabilitation is to fail the society that the state, in this case through corrections, has sworn to protect and give meaningful life. Second, surveys show that the American public, though punitive, believes in correctional rehabilitation. Therefore, it is a positive indication that the American public will support this model. Such sentiment could become stronger once correctional rehabilitation programs are designed effectively. (pp. 160-161) Therefore, evidences have strongly disputed critics’ critique of rehabilitation that nothing works with it. Instead, these show the wisdom of reinstating rehabilitation as the dominant model for corrections, because it does work. However, for it to be truly effective, it should be evidence-based for it to truly respond to the needs of the target population. More importantly, the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation in making society a better place to live in is the fact that rehabilitation perceives corrections not as an end in itself but a means to help prepare offenders to successfully reintegrate in community life and be one of its productive members. Such intention is not apparent in the justice model, as reality presents a bigger problem once these offenders have served their sentences and have been freed. In this sense, correctional rehabilitation is not only morally right, but is practically necessary. A Better Future Awaits Society with Rehabilitation than Retribution Rehabilitation should be the dominant model for corrections because it is a positive response to a social problem that when left unaddressed will create a bigger problem in the future. Data (Camp & Camp, 1998, Nelson, Deess & Allen, 1999, Petersilia, 2000, as cited in Seiter& Kadela, 2003) show that annually hundreds of thousands of prison inmates are released from prison. More disturbingly, many of whom are without parole, while some are unsupervised. (p. 366) This means that un-rehabilitated ex-inmates are to return to communities again. This data alone can create insecurity and fear in communities. This could also be the feeling of ex-inmates, because coming from a hostile environment hardened by a hostile culture necessitates preparation to adjust to a new environment. Among the several issues confronting ex-offenders once released from prison that the Vera Institute of Justice in New York identify are finding permanent shelters, rebuilding family and friendly ties, finding a living, alcohol and substance abuse, crime involvement, and the effect of parole supervision (as cited in Seiter and Kadela, 2003, p. 367). Essentially so, ex-inmates problem once freed is how to rebuild their lives in such a way that they will be able to refrain from committing criminal offenses once again. Knowing the stigma that usually marks ex-offenders adds to the difficulty of their reintegration. In other words, ex-offenders reentry to communities creates insecurity and fear on both sides. Unless the source of this fear is addressed, the future for ex-offenders and the communities to which they will reintegrate will remain bleak. The best way to address this is through rehabilitation, because the very intention of rehabilitation is to help offenders be prepared to reintegrate. Cognizant of the social context of every criminal offense, rehabilitation similarly seeks to involve community participation in rehabilitating offenders. Besides, unless every offender will be denied reentry, which is grossly unjust, there is no other way but to rehabilitate them while in correction facilities. In this sense, corrections truly achieve what it is meant for. Conclusion The use of rehabilitation as a dominant model for corrections as argued above rests on the following grounds: First, it is the model that illustrates the moral obligation of society in dealing with human frailty; it is the model that realizes the place of ethics in the criminal justice system; and it is the model that emphasizes what are social institutions ought to be – they are above all to humanize society. Second, it is the model that is not only ethical but also practical and necessary. Without rehabilitating offenders, corrections are failures, thus futile. And lastly, it is the model that does not only deals with the here and now, but also looks for a better future. In short, rehabilitation gives meaning, usefulness, and necessity for corrections in bringing about an ethical criminal justice system. References Braswell, M. C. (2012). Ethics, crime and justice: An introductory note to students. In M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy & B. J. McCarthy (Eds.), Justice, crime and ethics (7th ed., pp. 3-10). Burlington, MA: Anderson Publishing. Chilton, B. S. (1998). Constitutional Conscience: Criminal Justice and Public Interest Ethics. Criminal Justice Ethics, 17 (2), 33. Clear, T. R., Cole, G. F. & Reisig, M. D. (2010). American corrections (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3 (1), 109-175. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective Correctional Treatment and Violent Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42 (4), 449. Gold, J. (2012). Utilitarian and deontological approaches to criminal justice ethics. In M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy & B. J. McCarthy (Eds.), Justice, crime and ethics (7th ed., pp. 11-24). Burlington, MA: Anderson Publishing. Lin, A. C. (2000). Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. Mauer, M. (1996). Tales of a Criminal Justice Reformer. Criminal Justice Ethics, 15 (1), 2+. Petersilia, J. (2005, August). Corrections: Past, present and future. Corrections Today, 67 (5), 114. Seiter, R. P. & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prison reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49 (3), 360-388. Taxman, F. S, Perdoni, M. L. & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32 (3), 239-254. Walsh, T. (2006). Is corrections correcting? An examination of prisoner rehabilitation policy and practice in Queensland. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39 (1), 109+. Weiman, D. F. (2007). Barriers to Prisoners Reentry into the Labor Market and the Social Costs of Recidivism. Social Research, 74 (2), 575+. Read More