University of Phoenix
Survey of Justice and Security
March 2, 2015
Introduction The focus of this paper will discuss the heated debate regarding Punishment vs. Rehabilitation. After the reading for the week and extreme amounts of other research on the subject, it is shockingly evident the popular approach “three –strikes” , “get tough on crime”” and truth in sentencing” (Wright, 2010), propelled by precarious growth in the prison population, while having at most a limited effect on crime rates. The increase in crime and incarceration of individuals has increased despite the mandatory rehabilitation during sentencing. In 2003 the United States had a higher number of the population, over 2 million, in the criminal justice system, over any other developed country (BENSON, 2015). The human mind unfortunately doesn’t use logic or rational thought when considering committing a crime, so the deterrence theory collapses, and when over half of the prisoners are under the influence of drugs or alcohol which increases the probability that all inhibitions are on hiatus (Wright, 2010). Effectiveness of Punishment – Effectiveness of Rehabilitation
While incarcerated As a parent I try to think back to when I was growing up in hope that I can understand the mind of my sixteen year old son. I have many theories on the subject of punishment. First when envisioning the fundamentals and standards that my generation grew up with, and the generation before, the general mindset was and is poles apart. Simply a spanking was enough to deter me from misbehaving. Today I don’t see the same behavior in juveniles or adults. Punishment occasionally is painful, physically or psychologically, and avoidance is the response. This avoidance is more difficult when incarcerated, therefore a condition develops facilitating conditioned responses either negative or positive auto response. The frequency of punishment and the severity are determining factors to the effectiveness to result in a positive reinforcement response to good behavior. The negative responses have serious consequences if inappropriately dispensed. What is the middle ground of effective punishment and appropriate positive reinforcement ("Effectiveness Of Punishment", 2014)?
For parolees attempting to reintegrate back into society, the most important things are basic needs – food, and shelter, but the opportunity to use drugs and alcohol is there, even with the freedom to leave the jail, and live without the bars the freedom is truncated because it’s temporary.("Substance Abuse Treatment For Adults In The Criminal Justice System.", n.d.).
Recently a study that resulted in innovative alternatives to incarceration specifically for low level and nonviolent offences has reduced the fiscal deficit for Texas and Arkansas ("Smart On Crime", 2013). Deterrence of crime
While incarcerated The certainty of punishment for an infraction of the rules, doesn’t seem to even be a deterrent for the simple reason, the individuals that work in the prison systems 30 years ago were called “guards” now in comparison “correctional officers”. The underlying forces here simply speak volumes – the similarity to sending your pubescent teen to time out. The certainty of an arrest and conviction are no longer 100% (Wright, 2010).
Community supervision The resulting impact of increased recidivism has a conclusively increased the percentage , for low risk offenders serving longer sentences, therefore it has been proven that low risk offenders who spent less time in prison had a lower percentage of recidivism. Offenders maintain a connection to family and community, and this will help to successfully integrate them back society. In comparison to a prisoner serving a longer sentence are more anti-social, and removed from society, becoming isolated, and resentful