Rehabilitation vs Retribution

[radishhead]

- Rehabilitation is the idea of ‘curing’ an offender of their criminal behaviour, of changing their habits, their outlook and even personality, so as to make them less inclined to commit crimes in the future. It seeks to prevent a person from reoffending by taking away the desire to offend. This is very different from the idea of deterrence (the idea of making him afraid to offend, though he may still desire to), and the idea of incapacitation (which is the idea of taking away his physical power to offend).

- Retribution is the idea that punishment should be determined chiefly by the seriousness of the crime itself, and not by consequentialist factors, such as whether the punishment is enough to deter the rest of society. It is a very serious mistake to think that the retributive ideal in the criminal justice system is about vengeance, retaliation or payback. Rather, it is an extremely sophisticated idea that often forms the basis of, and arguably is even the leading indication of, a developed sentencing system.

- The debate between rehabilitation and ‘retribution’ involves two broad questions: ideologically, which is the more satisfactory justification for punishment; and practically, which can serve as a more useful guide for sentencers and other agents in the criminal justice system?

- I could have gone into more detail here, obviously. Are there some people that just can't be rehabilitated? Are jail sentences too harsh? Too lenient? Does jail make an offender worse? Should the death penalty exist for repeat/serious offenders?

Discuss :)