Introduction
People have been divided on the mechanisms that the criminal justice system should adopt with regard to its mandate of guaranteeing the security of the members of the public and ensuring that criminals are brought to book. Myriad and assorted thoughts and prospects have been brought into the discourse, with one side of the argument holding that the criminal justice system should be more punitive in its approach to guaranteeing the security and protection of the members of the public. Contrastingly, the other side of the argument has held that the criminal justice system should be more rehabilitative in its endeavors to guarantee the society and protection of the members of the public. As Forsberg and Douglas note, a consequence of these two main prevailing outlooks of the criminal justice system, the bone of contention as well as the big question in the mandate of the criminal justice system has been should rehabilitation be the main focus of the criminal justice system (Forsberg & Douglas, 2020, p. 2). It is vital to point out that a comprehensive effort geared towards providing a cogent response to the big question of the overall approach and route that the criminal justice system should take in executing its mandate requires a careful appraisal of the pros and cons of a rehabilitative approach to curbing delinquency and criminal behavior versus a punitive approach of tackling the same. This essay takes the position that rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system because a rehabilitative approach holds immense potential when it comes to addressing the root reasons behind delinquency and criminality compared to a punitive approach. Moreover, the essay argues that harsh punitive actions without a comprehensive look into the root causes of crime or recidivism are not exhaustive and are likely to produce less than impressive results. To support its main position, the essay delves into the ethicality, cost-effectiveness, and utility that accompany rehabilitation as the main aim of the criminal justice system in relation to a punitive approach to crime and recidivism.
Discussion
One of the chief reasons why the main aim of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation as opposed to punitive actions lies in the fact that, from an ethical perspective, providing rehabilitation is more moral than sheer punishment. The ethicality of rehabilitation that constitutes the primary reason why it should be the main aim of the criminal justice system lies in its recognition of the potential of offenders and, thus, treats them with the human dignity that they deserve as opposed to the irredeemable and disposable impression that application/emphasis on punitive actions creates among criminals (Logan & Gaes, 1993, p. 3). It is important to note that crime, delinquency, or recidivism are a by-product or symptom of much bigger underlying issues that should not only be understood, but efforts should be channeled towards the arrest and eradication of such issues. Because of this, fashioning the aims of the criminal justice system around punitive actions alone is a case of treating the symptoms of the problem as opposed to the main reasons behind the problem while, at the same time, viewing criminals as disposable and irredeemable people with do not have any dignity or do not deserve one. Such a view is, to say the least, unethical. On the other hand, rehabilitation, through mental treatment, counseling, job training, and even awareness, tackles the main root causes of the crime while also giving criminals the dignity and the do-overs that they need (Logan & Gaes, 1993, p. 4).
Another prime reason why rehabilitation should be the main focus of the criminal justice system lies in the costs that rehabilitation exerts on the taxpayers versus the cost that a punitive approach exerts on the taxpayers (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, p. 2). The cumulative cost of rehabilitation, besides being sustainable in the long run, is that it is also cheaper in comparison to punitive approaches. It is vital to point out that a punitive approach to the criminal justice system involves locking criminal behind bars, where they are expected to serve their time, sometimes serving life imprisonment without parole. The unsustainable and, thus, costly aspect of an approach involving locking criminals up lies in the fact that by design, the approach has no option of breaking the cycle. In fact, it does not even try to break the cycle of crime in individuals. Some decades ago, Cullen and Gendreau established that more than $ 36,000 is annually spent on keeping a single low cadre delinquent/criminal who would otherwise benefit from cheap rehabilitation programs in prison. This is extremely expensive given that many of the criminals who are serving considerably less time are low cadre and low echelon and only need a new start or second chance involving candid solutions to the root issues that are driving them to crime (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, p. 4).
The last aspect that forms another solid ground for why the aim of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation as opposed to punishment or pure punitive action is the utilitarian nature of rehabilitation when compared to punishment (Baraza, 2020, p. 2). While at first glance, austere punishment may sound and feel like a good thing for a criminal, and there is a notion of utility against a larger population when a criminal is locked up in jail for good, such a utility is short-lived and only endures as long as the criminal is in prison or while they are serving their time. Immediately, they are out; the general public is faced with the same risk as before. On the other hand, when efforts are made to reform and rectify a criminal through rehabilitative and restorative measures that would ensure they would fully re-integrate back into society after going through the criminal justice system, the risk is completely removed from the general public, maximizing the utility that rehabilitation has over pure punishment (Baraza, 2020, p. 3). While some may argue that there is no guarantee that one will never commit a crime after undergoing programs that are aimed at rehabilitating and re-integrating back into society, there is equally no guarantee that one will not perform another crime after serving their time if anything, there have been instances where those serving time have been involved in crime while still serving their time. At least rehabilitation is humane/dignified, economical, and tackles issues buttressing criminal behavior.
Conclusion
All policies, actions, and approaches of the criminal justice system should be fashioned and designed such that they favor rehabilitation over austere punishment. Punishment without a clear strategy that tackles the underpinning rationale behind any criminal conduct is a mere knee-jack reaction and is, to say the least, superficial in its approach to crime. The criminal justice system should favor rehabilitative processes because they are cost-effective, humane, and dignified and have the longest and biggest utility with reference to the security of the general public.
References
Baraza, S. (2020). Criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3727711
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. Criminal justice, 3(1), 299-370.
Forsberg, L., & Douglas, T. (2020). What is criminal rehabilitation? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 16(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09547-4
Logan, C. H., & Gaes, G. G. (1993). Meta-analysis and the rehabilitation of punishment. Justice Quarterly, 10(2), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829300091811
write