Introduction
Various philosophies have long debated the most appropriate method to address criminality. Some philosophers contend that punishment is the best way to address criminality since individuals should be held accountable for their actions. On the other hand, rehabilitation advocates believe that societies should endeavor to transform criminal individuals into productive members through deliberate effort in training and character development. This essay will delve into the superiority of rehabilitation over mere punishment.
Explaining the perspective
I contend that while dealing with criminality, rehabilitation ought to complement punishment. Both punishment and rehabilitation are designed to transform criminals into productive people. However, harsh punishment can lead to hardened offenders and cause increased vices in society. The debate between both issues is complex since both methods have strongholds in the global society. While some philosophies prefer addressing criminality through punishment, most philosophies have strived to justify the superiority of rehabilitation over punishment when dealing with crime.
When retributive justice is applied without regard for rehabilitation, it dehumanizes offenders and fails to recognize their potential goodness. Criminals ought to be treated humanely since they are moral beings with the capacity for redemption. They should have the chance to learn new ways of thinking and acting so that, after serving their sentence, they can make constructive contributions to society. Strict penalties lacking any form of rehabilitation neglect the social and environmental elements that frequently influence people to become criminals. When considering criminals as logical individuals whose shortcomings stem partly from their upbringing and surroundings, we should show compassion and offer resources for their rehabilitation. Rehabilitation acknowledges that while holding people accountable for their actions is important, society has a moral obligation to instill molarity in everyone, including criminals.
Philosophical Foundations
Several philosophical views support rehabilitation being given preference over punitive measures. Aristotle’s virtue ethics underscores that moral behavior may be encouraged, and character can be developed through habit training (Abakare, 2020). Giving offenders the chance and incentives to cultivate virtues may result in rehabilitation. Aristotle stresses that character is developed through practice and education. According to Nichomachean ethics, rehabilitation efforts are meant to cultivate virtue and restrain vices to rehabilitate criminals and develop good character (David, 2021). According to Aristotle, punishment should be intended to rectify and deter. Excessive severity of punishment can make people more prone to commit crimes. The intention ought to be to instill a habit of morality through education.
Utilitarianism favors initiatives in rehabilitation that yield the highest results. Utilitarians support rehabilitation programs that successfully deter crime in the future and generally improve people’s quality of life (Scarre, 2020). The intention is to alleviate potential suffering and to increase future satisfaction. Similarly, utilitarians argue that punishment should be designed to maximize overall utility rather than merely retaliate. Punishment is appropriate if it helps society, reforms the offender, or discourages similar offenses in the future. Painful punishment can fuel an offender’s aggression and lead to increased vices instead of correcting the unwanted behavior. Similarly, unlike rehabilitation, punishment can make individuals feel unwanted, leading to resentment and increased unwanted behavior.
These viewpoints underscore values such as societal benefit, human dignity, virtue development, and social obligations that justify rehabilitation as the main goal. Kant highlighted the need for “justice to be done” while emphasizing the need for “the human being to be restored.” Additionally, criminologist Daniel M’Naghten stated, “Surgeons heal a broken limb so it may function properly; so should prisons reform criminals so they function properly in society” (Johnston & Leahey, 2020). Prisons that do not offer opportunities for rehabilitation turn into “schools of crime” where antisocial and violent behavior is cultivated.
Addressing Counterarguments
Some philosophers contend that justice requires proportionate punishment. For example, Kant’s retributive theory of punishment highlights that a perpetrator ought to experience pain commensurate with the gravity of their offense. However, punishment and rehabilitation do not always have to conflict. Penalties appropriate to the offense can be coupled with opportunities for rehabilitation and change. If punishment does not increase utility, it should be reformed. From a utilitarian perspective, rehabilitation contributes to the larger welfare of society.
Additionally, rehabilitation is opposed because certain offenders cannot be changed. Even though some programs may not be able to rehabilitate all offenders successfully, we cannot justify putting people off as irredeemable. Martin Luther King Jr. contended that “no one can be abandoned to the indignity of being discarded” in a letter from Birmingham jail (Marks, 2021).
Conclusion
Ultimately, Philosophical ethics provides strong evidence in supporting treating criminal behavior with rehabilitation rather than punishment. An emphasis on societal value and respect for human dignity supports a justice system that aims to rehabilitate criminals and turn them into productive members. While some punishment may be used in addition to rehabilitation, it should always be based on the principle that moral development is possible for all people. Rather than being viewed as a form of retaliation, punishment should be used to help offenders rectify their behavior to contribute to society’s wellness. Rehabilitation benefits society and offenders alike.
References
Abakare, C. (2020). The Origin Of Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s Views. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 3(1), 98–112. https://www.gnosijournal.com/index.php/gnosi/article/view/88
David, R. (2021). The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. http://debracollege.dspaces.org/bitstream/123456789/509/1/The%20Nicomachean%20Ethics.pdf
Johnston, E. L., & Leahey, V. T. (2020). The Status and Legitimacy of M’Naghten’s Insane Delusion Rule. UC Davis L. Rev., p. 54, 1777. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/davlr54&div=36&id=&page=
Marks, R. (2021). King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail: Its Merit Through Dramatism. https://csusmdspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/219523/URA2021WinnerL.pdf?sequence=1
Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003070962
write