Introduction
The criminal justice system is a composite of institutional arrangements of people and processes aimed at restoring security in society while transforming criminals into law-abiding citizens again. Thus, correction objectives are vital in informing policies and practices within this system. The objectives for corrections are examined in this paper, as well as the extent and ways to mitigate such conflicts. In addition, it examines whether the goal conflicts in corrections may produce positive results that will sustain the progress for the betterment of the criminal justice system.
Goals Of Corrections
In the criminal justice system, corrections aim to achieve several key goals, which include:
Rehabilitation
The main objective of corrections is to rehabilitate and change offenders into responsible and law-abiding members. The principle acknowledges that lots of people become part of the criminal justice system because of problems like drug addiction, poor education, mental health troubles, or joblessness. Rehabilitation aims to equip offenders with the right skills and support systems to exit the cycle of crime.
Deterrence
The deterrent is aimed at discouraging criminal actions by inducing the spirit of fright for the penalty among those who may commit such acts. There are two forms of deterrence: Specialized deterrence refers to the specific offender. For example, when an individual spends some years in prison for committing a property offense and feels the bitterness of imprisonment, they may not commit the offense again. General Deterrence: This is meant to discourage the general populace from committing crimes.
Retribution
Retribution argues that it is only fair for the perpetrator to undergo the same suffering that the victim experienced as a result of their crime. This means that justice is best achieved by making an offender suffer as much as he did to the victim. Retribution can be exemplified by life imprisonment or even the death penalty in some states when compensating for cases of murder where people believe they need to re-establish justice and make it possible again for society to be equal and balanced. Retributive justice advocates contend that such punishments might be excessive in some situations, even considering factors like emotions and public sentiments. A balance is needed to prevent unduly severe punishments that have no bearing on reforming the offender.
Public Safety
Public safety is among the chief aims of corrective work. This encompasses apprehending hostile offenders in the community and offering protection from any other threats to the populace. For example, in case a person has committed violent offenses before and puts people’s lives at risk, keeping them behind bars for prolonged periods would be necessary to safeguard public security. But, on the issue of safety, the public requires a balance between other objectives on corrections. Too much dependence on punishments might overwhelm prisons and leave no room for reformation. Hence, correctional systems usually have to walk on a fine line to render unsafe criminals while taking care of the origins of criminal conduct so as not to repeat it.
Conflict Among Goals
While each goal serves a distinct purpose in the criminal justice system, conflicts can arise. For instance, the pursuit of retribution through lengthy prison sentences may conflict with rehabilitation efforts, as punitive measures may not always align to reform offenders. Similarly, the focus on deterrence might result in the overuse of incarceration, which can strain correctional resources and lead to issues of overcrowding. One example of this conflict is the debate over sentencing for non-violent drug offenders. While some argue for rehabilitation and treatment to address the root causes of addiction, others advocate for punitive measures to deter drug-related offenses. These conflicting perspectives can lead to policy debates and tensions within the criminal justice system.
Minimizing Goal Conflicts and Positive Aspects of Goal Conflict
Evidence‐based practice should be instituted to deal with the conflicting goals of corrections and in consideration of individual offender’s peculiarities. On sentence modification and correctional programs tailored to a particular offender is where some balance between treatment and control is struck. Moreover, there is a different option known as restorative justice programs, which address the cause of pain the offender has caused and includes the contribution of victims and communities towards the solution. In addition, cooperation between different criminal justice professions, including court officials, probation officers, and corrections personnel, is fundamental for achieving harmonized objectives of corrections while avoiding contradictions between such objectives.
Conflicts between correctional goals may be difficult but also offer great advantages. Such conflicts may result in heated discussion or debate among players in the criminal justice system, compelling policymakers and practitioners to review and revise correctional practices. Conflicts in goals set a higher degree of thinking, which promotes creativity, fairer, reasonable techniques, and solutions for crime and correction.
Conclusion
Balancing the goals of corrections in the criminal justice system is a complex but essential task. While conflicts among these goals can present challenges, they also offer opportunities for growth and improvement within the criminal justice system. It can mitigate goal conflicts and create a more effective and equitable correctional system by emphasizing evidence-based practices, individualized interventions, and restorative justice approaches.
References
Butler, H. D., Tasca, M., Zhang, Y., & Carpenter, C. (2019). A systematic and meta-analytic review of the literature on correctional officers: Identifying new avenues for research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 84-92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004723521830312X
Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2019). Corrections in the community. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429424021/corrections-community-edward-latessa-brian-lovins
O’Neal, K. (2019). Ethics in the Criminal Justice System. Authorea Preprints. https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/28916/preprint_pdf/d67e5f3c4c477060af192944abab4a6b.pdf
Prenzler, T. (2021). Ethics and accountability in criminal justice: Towards a universal standard. Australian Academic Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=joEnEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=criminal+justice+ethics&ots=TiAs8rIiwL&sig=GrVepq4Z3y3IAuSi26DatYKKuoo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=criminal%20justice%20ethics&f=false
Ward, T., & Durrant, R. (2021). Practice frameworks in correctional psychology: Translating causal theories and normative assumptions into practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, 101612. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178921000665
Završnik, A. (2020, March). Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. In ERA forum (Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 567-583). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-020-00602-0
write