Not being able to do this does not just punish the wrongdoers but also defines justice. It divests discharged wrongdoers of fair protection in the law, more just and citreous integration, and finally draws an extension for the American offenders and victims. The potential of implementing punishment rather than rehabilitation to the labeled offenders in jail and supervised by the society has become a topic of controversy within the criminal justice system throughout century.
The evolving and changing kinds of prisons, the expansion of crimes in the twentieth century and the shifting of the criminal justice model into crime control model are factors that contribute to a more incidents of crimes and the abolishment of criminal acts. As proven by lapse paces, the change to punishment founded upon desirable, societal payback and security and also wide range applications of justness, the American community has drew the repays of the crime-control which is the punishment-based system (U. S. Department of Justice, 2011). It has been said that the prices of imprisonment assess the American people to an undue degree.
The deprivation of societal shares and labor are tangible even if not measured in the present search. Afterwards, they urge outcomes to societies and inmates. The increasing numbers of imprisoned from 1 990 and the growing dates solicit thoughtfulness. An individual may be curious the wrongfulness of the criminal justice system and the punishment model. Just by the numbers, the system has to involve rehabilitation and reform sooner and frequent. In California, the prison system is given five percent of budget intended for the rehabilitation. Due to overcrowding, convicts are punished with reduced convictions only.
Thus, the rehabilitation models suitably assist the public. Retribution and Protection vs.. Reform and Rehabilitation A number of studies held by some scholars and the Department of Justice valuated the doubts of punishment and imprisonment against reform and rehabilitation. The relapsing value that transcends in United States shows that punishment solely is not capable of preventing crime (U. S. Department of Justice, 2011 The insights of the American community towards the offenders also authored the varying sentence patterns comparative to trials (Shih, 2008; Wright, et. L, 2004; Manta & Assessable, n. D. ). Besides, they have motivated great rates of refunding. Remarkably, the second is not just initiated through criminal acculturation or jail but through public views of the offenders that eve assisted period. Because of these, an individual should ask the reason why societal retribution and crime-control in the criminal justice perseveres. Definitely, the Americans have read statistical reports of the state, Department of Justice, and province institutions. Broadcasts echo prison overpopulation and the increasing charges with orderliness.
Thus, punishment has been favored. Even if it only encourages greater tendency and bounds assistances to the community, the criminal justice system of America has not yoked and smeared constant undesirable payments but confirmed also the conflicts of B. F. Skinner that punishment only simply nurtures further unwanted manners (Con & Mutterer, 2010, p. 23). Two Models Comparisons & Costs Upon considering both the models, different dissimilarities will be clear. Definitely, several victims and their respective families pursue revenge and public security.
Victims’ Rights laws approved the victims and their respective families the right for speech during hearings and Victims’ Rights laws have granted victims and their families the right to speak during punishing and parole board trials. Advances like these help victims and community through certain allowance. But, a person should give consideration on the deliberation of the arguments and testimonials. Management will show the most judicious when the criminal justice system supported the rehabilitation in the prison or with the community programs.
This leads to the production of liable people who certainly do compensation or performed so means that bid safety and reckoning. Imprisonment gives the best guarantee of public safety and retribution. With this rehabilitation or treatment offered to the offenders for their cases like drug abuse or others that motivated them, at what charge will it be. It can be viewed that America has been confined on its specific reluctance for a change, to treat such foundation of existing problems. As a result, this leads to further societal danger.
The statistical reports of Bureau of Justice 2002 and 2007 Statistics show that punishment cannot prevent the occurrences of offenses. It has been explained by Manta and Assessable, (n. D. ) that those offenders who are not well-prepared for the societal rehabilitation below four months before being discharged are probably be re-imprisoned compared to their complements hat obtain trainings and also services (Shih, 2008). The study of Shih (2008) about immature criminals, reintegration, and the support programs validates such findings and interchangeably shows how these attempts lessen re-offense rates for about 35% (p. ). Giving parole or early release is one way of reducing the rate of recidivism. Basing from a study about parolee, U. S. Department of Justice 2007 Statistics exposed that the rate of re-imprisonment is 15. 5%. It was found out that there is one in every five of 1, 248, 337 parolees who were re-imprisoned (p. ). Due to the fact that recidivism occurs mostly from drug related crimes, the programs about treatment and substance misuse proposed the greatest benefit (U . S. Department of Justice, 2011).
The high percentage of re-arresting the released prisoners within the period of three years suggests punishment. Besides, lengthy judgments do not reduce the rate of recidivism. Continuous Punishment Leads to Higher Recidivism If detention and incapacitation are given consideration within Skinner’s Behaviorism, discharging the prisoners who have not undergone rehabilitation r training succeeds as nonstop punishment or distribution of negative reinforcement. Even if there is no formality on it, it has been organized and can be measured as disciplinary as it is itself an incarceration.
It preserves relegation and separation thus, delineates belongingness or recognition. Besides, it bound the skill to partake within many scopes of community. Shih (2008) opposes that such normalization gives chance for the criminals to be in the society and perform such without the public permission, abilities, and self-reliance needed (p. 4). Logically, utmost recidivism exists within the period of first six months later from being discharged (Motto and Selfsameness, n. D. ).
Provided the aforesaid situations and truths, community reduces prevention since it keeps to bring negative rewards even in outside the prison cells (Wright, et. Al, 2004, p. 183). Conclusion By basing on the preceding examination of the American society, the need of the state for criminal justice system and retribution gradually give attention on societal safety and retribution, high rates of recidivism, growing numbers of orison, and that punishment cannot prevent crime. Instead, as demonstrated by different studies, this encourages greater re-incarceration and re-arrests rates.
