When it comes to addressing the actions of criminal offenders, there are two options: punishing them to the fullest extent to the law based on their offense, or giving them the tools and resources they need to become a better person and return to society. These approaches, retribution and rehabilitation, have long been compared in their efficacy in improving society and lowering crime.
When it comes to what the United States justice system has preferred throughout history, the answer is somewhat mixed. The 19th and early 20th centuries were focused on rehabilitation, as seen in the increase of opening asylums and the interest of helping those struggling with substance abuse. A shift occurred in the later 20th century under Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who both declared a war on drugs and led with a “hard on crime” mindset; under their leadership, there was an increase in the presence of police officers in American society and the prison population. Some would argue that the United States today still favors a retributive approach, seen in President Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential election campaign, where he spoke about expanding use of the death penalty and increasing immunity for police officers.
Currently, America operates under a criminal justice system geared towards retribution, with methods including the death penalty, life sentences without the possibility of parole, and permanent placement on registries. Having a system in place to punish those who commit crimes to the fullest extent of the law may bring ease to the community, as well as closure to those who have been victims of crime. There is also a reason rooted in logic: if the criminal justice system punishes those who commit crimes severely, it will deter people from committing crimes in the first place. For those reasons, a retributional approach may seem superior to rehabilitation.
However, retribution also has its fair share of drawbacks. The most glaring one is that retribution alone does not decrease the risk of reoffending; in some cases, it can increase the risk. Retribution does not seek to understand the reasons each offender committed their crime, leaving mindset issues untreated and unnoticed. Reasons left unconsidered, especially ones such as potential mental illness, substance abuse, or poverty leaves room for any given offender to leave prison and commit more crimes. Other drawbacks of retribution include its higher costs, inhumane practices (such as solitary confinement), and historic racial bias in punishing offenders. Most tragically, living under a retributive justice system could also lead to innocent people being punished for crimes; this could go so far as executing innocent people, which we have seen happen throughout history.
Rehabilitation, on the other hand, focuses on bettering the offender as a person, preparing them for a productive life outside of incarceration. Real-life methods of rehabilitation, such as providing educational programs, mental health support, and substance abuse treatment, have proved effective in lowering rates of reoffending and improving reintegration into society following release. By dedicating time to better understanding offenders and their potential reasons for why they committed the crimes they did, the justice system alleviates their inclinations to commit offenses and gives them the opportunity to better themselves.
However, like retribution, rehabilitation has potential downfalls. A major one is the lack of access that incarcerated individuals may have to these resources; this could be rooted in a prison not having enough funding for programs, services, and specialists. If incarcerated individuals cannot access means of rehabilitation, then they cannot reap its potential benefits. Other drawbacks of rehabilitation include struggle to obtain public support (and thus make it harder to implement means of rehabilitation), inadequate supervision of its programs, and incarcerated individuals leaving prison after having participated in these programs with struggles due to the nature of just being in prison.
Rehabilitation aims to see offenders as human beings capable of positive change and gives them the tools to do so. Although they have made mistakes, criminals would also benefit from being given the chance to improve themselves not only for their own personal well-being, but also for the well-being of society.
Works Cited
Atkinson, Daryl V. “A Revolution of Values in the U.S. Criminal Justice System.” Center for American Progress, 27 Feb. 2018, www.americanprogress.org/article/revolution-values-u-s-criminal-justice-system/.
Bryant, Erica. “Why Punishing People in Jail and Prison Isn’t Working.” Vera Institute of Justice, 24 Oct. 2023, www.vera.org/news/why-punishing-people-in-jail-and-prison-isnt-working.
Cullen, James. “The History of Mass Incarceration.” Brennan Center for Justice, 20 July 2018, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-mass-incarceration.
Forsberg, Lisa, and Thomas Douglas. “What Is Criminal Rehabilitation?” Criminal Law and Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 1, 2020, pp. 103–126, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09547-4.
Greenblatt, Alan. “What Trump’s Election Would Mean for Criminal Justice Policy.” Governing, 29 Sept. 2024, www.governing.com/policy/what-trumps-election-would-mean-for-criminal-justice-policy.
“Race and Retribution: An Empirical Study of Implicit Bias and Punishment in America | UC Davis Law Review.” UC Davis Law Review, lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/53/2/race-and-retribution-empirical-study-implicit-bias-and-punishment-america.
.png)