Incapacitation

               The idea of incapacitated justice dates back to ancient times. It has been practiced for centuries and will continue to be practiced. Incapacitating was originally introduced to take the person who caused harm to society, out. It still works the same way and is used for the same purposes, just the methods being used have changed. In earlier times, things were a little bit more extreme and the conditions in which prisoners had to live in were almost inhumane. However, the main question of incapacitated justice is whether it prevents crime significantly.

            Not many studies have been done to prove if incapacitating criminals is at effective as it sounds. What has been proven over time is that there is a directs correlation between crime rate and incapacitation. There has been little concrete evidence to prove that incapacitation prevents crime. Crime rates did not necessarily drop drastically, but many argue that it could have been higher if it weren’t for incapacitation. There are many ways that the law can incapacitate us.

            Incapacitating people can come in many different forms. One of them is house arrest. House arrest is when a person is taken out of society by placing them in their homes for a certain amount of time. The offender is unable to leave their home and has some sort of tracking device on them to be able to regulate whether they leave their house or not. Some forms of this are with just ankle monitors, in these cases the offender is allowed to leave their dwelling, but may not be allowed to stray too far for too long. There are still countries that have more barbaric forms of incapacitating their offenders.

            For examples, some of the countries that are still under the Islamic law will use significantly harsher punishments, than the ones that are used here in the United States. Theft is considered a very serious crime in these countries and the people who steal punishment is to have their dominant hand removed. For women, not men, that commit adultery will get stoned to death. These punishments sound very ancient and most would not think that they are still used today. Imprisonment is not as commonly seen in some countries as it is seen in North America.

            In the United States the most common form of incapacitation is imprisonment. That is why most jails and prisons are highly crowded. Being that the United State has more regulations and laws concerning human rights, cause for there to be more incarceration, longer sentencing, and less harmful punishments. Incapacitation needs to be further studied especially if it is one of the more common forms of justice. Many of the numbers and statistics concerning it are, skeptical because it is really hard to measure if whether a person was going to even commit a crime in the first place. There are a lot of things left unsure and unanswered with this type of punishment.

            There is no way to actually tell whether or not someone was going to commit a violent crime. Therefore being able to measure it, is incredibly difficult, and frankly we’re not psychic. Incapacitation only leads to more arrests and incarceration, which most definitely, is not the answer to the United States overcrowding issue in the jails and prisons. Due to the fact that most offenders are spending all this time being incarcerated, they lose any ounce of social skills they had. They get released no longer knowing how to behave in a normal daily life setting. They struggle finding and maintaining a job, they struggle forming and maintaining relationships, and usually find their way back in jail or prison. Few people realize that incarceration only solves the short term problem without confronting the lasting effect of incarceration.

            Incapacitation is a necessary means of punishment, but it is not the only means. People will leave jail or prison and almost immediately fall back into their bad habits and routines. What people need to focus on, is getting people to truly want to stay out by having a good and healthy life. A lot of people in jail or prison will get too used to being in there and somehow always find their way back. People gravitate to what they are comfortable with, and a lot of times prison/jail are these peoples comfort zones.

 http://law.jrank.org/pages/1353/Incapacitation-scholarly-literature-on-incapacitation-measurement-incapacitative-effects.html

Jon'a F. Meyer's Retributive Justice

Retributive Justice, by Jon’a F Meyer is an article that primarily focuses on retribution style of punishment and how it is best form punishment. The article has a few main points and solid evidence to back up the author’s claim. Throughout the article, it is apparent that the author favors retributive justice over any other kind. However, retributive justice is not the only good form of punishment, even though the author strongly believes that it is.

          In many ways treatment, has proved to be more effective than just regular punishment. In a different article, Punishment Fails, Rehabilitation Works., by James Gilligan, he states that providing more programs in prisons decreases the chance recidivism. Receiving a high school diploma program alone has had a 100 percent effective in the past. If prisons were to develop more programs to help prisoners become more contributing members of society upon release, they number of re-offenses would go down. However, too many people believe that making people pay for what they did is more important than making them learn from the mistakes they made. Now, it is understandable that there are certain crimes where this may not be the answer.

          There are cold blooded rapists and murders who do not feel remorse, therefore do not benefit from therapy. Still, understanding their behavior is crucial in preventing it. Many who spend a significant amount of time in prison are there mainly because they continue to offend. These people are the ones that will gain the most from rehabilitation, psychotherapy, and other educational programs. In learning, how to overcome their issues, it will help them get out and stay out. Without adequate treatment, these people are going in to prison and coming back within 3 years (Gilligan, 1).

          Rehabilitation programs in jail and prisons have always been limited. Many believe that feeling the need for revenge is outdated and does not solve any of the underlying issues that led to the crime in the first place. Taking the criminal away from being able to cause harm is the primary focus for the government. In doing so they are not doing anything to help them decrease their chances of reoffending once out. This also does not help the issue of recidivism because, people leave and go back often which spends taxpayer’s money and becomes nearly unmanageable. Meyer makes it clear in various parts of his article that he favors the “eye for an eye” approach.

          The authors diction throughout the article is indicative of siding with retributive justice. For example, “The value of the retribution cannot be cheapened by using it to compensate for inadequacies of the justice system.” (para. 5) Using words like “cheapened” and “inadequacies” express his emotion towards the justice system, and how it can diminish the worth of retributive justice. However, for him, that is impossible because he knows the true worth retributive justice and its importance to society. He thinks that people must pay for their actions.

          Meyer then, brings religion into his topic because he knows a lot of people are religious and they will strongly take into consideration what he says about it. He

explains how the concept of retribution often reoccurs in religions, (para. 12). He then gives examples of several religions and moments in which they used retribution as a way of punishment. He does this to prove that most religions are guilty of doing this, and that it is a necessary form of punishment. Throughout the rest of the article he uses logos and ethos to show that retribution is the best form of punishment, this appeals to the people who are not as religious or not even religious at all. For instance, “No other punishment philosophy gives so much importance to actus reus and mens rea.” This is a great example of ethos and knowing actual criminal justice terms gives him more credibility on the topic. Meyer is extremely good at being able to persuade his reader with the facts and information was given in the article.

          Retribution is key in punishing people and giving the victims a somewhat sense of closure. As previously mentioned people should move away from this ideal and consider the benefits of providing better treatment to the offenders. This does not mean that the offenders will be receiving no sort of punishment it just means that the punishment will be different from the norm and potentially more effective. It is hard for society to even consider changing the ways of punishment but it is obviously become necessary. If people keep getting put in jail or prison for same crimes, there is something wrong with them and it needs to be addressed and treated.

          The idea of punishment is very important in society, because most people feel that criminals must get what they deserve. When does it become too much? When are, the good guys becoming the bad guys? As a population, people need to focus more on helping each other, rather than just keeping incapacitating. It is understandable that in order to prevent future harm, that harm must be taken away. The people who harm need to realize what they have done, and must receive some sort of help to understand their issues better. In a way retribution is important, but it dismisses too many other forms of punishment and does not give enough attention to the underlying issues of each criminal.

          Jon’a F Meyer, does a fantastic job at trying to get his reader to side with retributive justice, and to understand the importance of it. He even has a great section in which he mentions why people do not support it, which shows the reader he is educated on all sides and knows what he is saying is valid. In summation, the article was good in getting the point across, but does not show in enough ways how retributive justice can fail.

sources:

 Galligan, J. (n.d.). The New York Times Company. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-work

Meyer, Jon’a F. “Retributive Justice.” Britannica Online Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2017

Deterrence Justice

Deterrence is one of the 5 forms of justice. Deterrence is pretty self-explanatory, the idea behind it is to deter people from committing crime, by unpleasant punishment. For instance, if someone commits and crime, the punishment is so horrible that no one will ever want to experience that, so they do not commit crimes. Another form of deterrence is increasing the inevitability of conviction. The more number of officers patrolling the highway, the more people will drive the speed limit. Theoretically, these two aspects of deterrence should prevent crime.

               However, that is not always the case, this form of punishment would work in a perfect world where everyone is capable of making sound and rational decisions. In the world, we live in, people commit crimes due to various different reasons. Often times they commit crime while under the influence of some sort of drug. During this time people are unable to make adequate decisions. Most times the offender could care less about whether they get caught or not, or if the punishment will be bad. Financial struggles can also come into play, many times people feel the need to steal, or sell drugs in order to get by. In deterrence, there are two forms, one is the certainty of the punishment and the other is the severity of the punishment (Valerie Wright, 4).

               In Valerie Wrights, Deterrence in Criminal Justice, he states that the certainty of punishment is more effective than how severe the punishment it, when it comes to recidivism. When people are more aware of the likelihood of them getting punished, than they are less likely to commit a crime. This does not apply to everyone but studies have shown it to be more effective. Same studies show that the severity of the punishment does not directly correlate to the chances of reoffending. This is because, eventually they will get out and it is harder for them to readjust into everyday life.

               After serving a long sentence and being away from friends, family, and employment it can be quite difficult to get resituated. The offenders who serve shorter sentences or just different kind of punishments, have an easier time getting back in there day to day routines. When only having left for a short period of time or not even at all, make it so the offender does not reoffend due to their reentrance into society. Not only is that a benefit, but with harsher punishment, come more expenses.

               Deterrence has been the reason for certain laws such as, three strikes law. The three-strike law was great in theory; it does not allow for offenders to continue to recommit the same offense or similar ones. The three-strike law was established for those who do not commit serious crimes, but they commit crimes nonetheless therefore they are arrested after the third time. The problem with this was that people would still commit crimes and find themselves in jail. Deterrence is a huge reason for the overcrowding of jails. The more people are in jail, the more that people need to pay in taxes to be able to finance jails.

               Rather than spending the money on incarceration, it would make more sense to spend it on treatment for these people. Valerie state in his article that “spending on drug treatment in community-based programs versus incarceration yields a higher return on the investment while at the same time improving the life outcomes of drug users.” (Valerie Wright, 10) It is only logical that this technique would be considerably more effective than deterrence.

               I understand the deterrence goals; however, it ends up not being as effective as planned. The Deterrence Justice relies too much on people’s rationality and knowledge of the justice system. Many offenders do not even know about the three-strike law, so how are they supposed to be expected to not reoffend? They also do not know the consequences of their actions. A good option in making Deterrence justice more effective is to come up with ways to inform communities of new laws and policies. By that, I don’t mean city council meetings, rather sending newsletters and such. That might not even be helpful, but it might be worth a try. I still strongly fell that the best way to prevent and stop crime is by making treatments readily available.

Sources:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf

Restorative Justice

Last week I discussed what Retributive Justice was, this week we are going to go over Restorative Justice. All forms are obviously necessary; however some people favor a certain one over the other or favor a few and completely disagree with the other. The point is that all the forms of justice are heavily criticized and in order to criticize each one, one must first be familiar with all of them. There are many people who have not given an actual effort to learn about all of them. Restorative just has fundamental elements, that will truly help some criminals.

               Restorative justice is “a new movement in the fields of victimology and criminology. Acknowledging that crime causes injury to people and communities, it insists that justice repair those injuries and that the parties be permitted to participate in that process,” (Restorative Justice, 1). In other words, the main focus is to repair and to restore as much of the damage as they can. Restorative Justice views criminal behavior and actions as not just lawbreaking, but also realizes that it they harm done to the victim, community, and themselves. It also allows for more victims and communities to respond to crime, rather than just the government and the offender. Additionally, it measures success by the amount of harm that is repaired or prevented, instead of how punishment is administered (Restorative Justice, 1). One of the ways that this form of justice is applied, is by face-to-face meetings.

               Having meetings between the victims, and their offenders, and even the affected members of the community are influential in understanding and confronting the fact that crime and justice correlate with one in other. In understanding their correlation, there is more possibility of crime repair and prevention. These meetings only occur when the offender has admitted to the crime at hand, and both parties are willing to participate. One form of the meetings is called Victim Offender Mediation, it allows for the victim and the offender to meet in a controlled environment. There is always a mediator present and both the victim and the offender discuss what happened, the victim talks about the harm that was done to them and how it affected them (Restorative Justice,2). This internalizes with the offender and they take responsibility for the damage they have done, preventing them to want to do it again.

               In the United States, there are only 300 victim offender mediation programs. There has been some research done on these programs and their result. The research indicated that there is more satisfaction with the victims and offenders who participated in the program, their chances of completing their restitution obligations increase, the victims fear decreases, and offenders are less likely to reoffend versus their normal court process counterparts (Restorative Justice,2). Another form of Restorative punishment is group conferencing. In this activity, the offender, the victim, family of both victim and offender, and any other support systems of either party come together to discuss the aftermath of the crime (Restorative Justice, 2).

               Conferencing goals are to give the victim a chance to be involved in the crime response, gives the offender awareness towards the gravity of their actions, allows the offender to somewhat make amends, and gives the victim and the offender community support. Restorative justice also deals with peacemaking. Peacemaking, also known as sentencing circles, brings in all the affected parties of the crime, judges, prosecutors, police and court workers, defense counsel, and judge to come up with a sentencing plan that addresses the concerns of all the people involved and affected. The idea behind peacemaking is to build a sense of community, offender may make amends, the cause of criminal behavior, and promote healing of everybody who was affected by the crime (Restorative Justice,3). Restorative Justice has many type of programs set up to in a way “punish” criminals. Many do not like it because they feel it is too lenient. 

Sources:

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Correctional%20Assessment/rj%20brief.pdf

rhetorical analysis

In Jon’a F. Meyer’s article, Retributive Justice, he gives a lot of insight the retributive purpose of punishment. He makes a great attempt at informing his reader about his topic, he uses a lot of solid evidence to explain what retribution is about in the justice system. He takes the reader through a step by step look at its evolution and effects on punishment. Meyer’s main claim is that retribution style punishment focuses on how people should be punished based on what crimes they commit, and how that is the best form of punishment. Meyer supports his claim by using a lot of logos and ethos throughout the article.

The second paragraph starts with retribution being used in ancient time. Such as, “Retribution appears alongside restorative principles in law codes from the ancient Near East, including the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the better-known Babylonian Code of Hammurabi.” Here, he articulates specific moments in history in which retribution was practiced. His main purpose for it being good in this part of the article is that it has been around since the beginning of punishment itself. Meyer’s even quotes the bible, stating that retribution punishment practices ‘an eye for an eye” rationality.

Right in the third paragraph Meyer’s show his first sign of ethos. He uses the terms actus reus and mens rea, which mean guilty act and guilty mind, to show his knowledge of the criminal justice system. He says, “No other punishment philosophy gives so much importance to actus reus and mens rea.” In using these terms, he shows his credibility not only for the topic at hand but for the criminal justice system as a whole. He proves that he is familiar with both and can speak on it. He goes into how in order to fall under retributive punishment both mens rea and actus reus need to be present. Meyer’s main form of supporting his claim is through logos.

His usage of facts and examples from the beginning up until the end of the article are key factors to him attempting to convey his stance towards retribution. Meyer’s gives a great example when explaining the need for both mens rea and actus reus. He explains, “Those who plan a murder but succeed only in wounding a victim, for example, should not be punished as harshly as those who actually carry out the murder.” This is a perfect example of logos, he is appealing to the logical mind of the reader, why would they receive a serious punishment if the crime ended up not being so serious?

Another instance of him using logos is when he refers to religion using forms of retribution punishment. He mentions how Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden because they violated God’s rules (para. 12) In this same paragraph, he points out how the Qur’an they believed in retribution as well, all that were “disobedient and wicked” would be punished (para.12). This appeals more to logos because they are direct examples from the Bible and the Qur’an, which may not entirely be true but it is a source. With that being said you can tell the author sides with retribution style punishment over the other types of punishments.

In several parts of the article, it is apparent that Meyer is in favor of retribution style of punishment. His verbalism throughout a lot of it illustrates his personal emotions towards the topic. Back in paragraph five, “The value of retribution cannot be cheapened by using it to compensate for inadequacies of the justice system.” This statement really shows how he feels towards the misuse of retribution and how it cannot be blamed on the type of punishment, but rather on how the punishment is be executed. Another great example of this is in the 7^th paragraph, Meyer’s talks about how deterrence form of punishment allows for “pardoning” of guilty acts if it “somehow” is better for the community. The word somehow really shows that he cannot fathom how it would be okay to let any crime slide, even if it is for the greater good. Meyer’s did a great job conveying his ideas towards retribution and had great evidence to support his claim.

In summation, Meyer’s was able to successfully write an article on how retribution is the best form of punishment. He did have a small section that argued his claim. “Others note that punishing criminals just because they have acted inappropriately does not address any underlying issues that may have lead them to crime.” (Para. 9) Using valid statements to argue his claim make him sound like he is educated in all aspects related to the topic. Due to this the reader, should still side with him because he truly studied and knows what he is talking about. 

What Are Prisons?

Prisons are a little different from jails. There are a lot of people who do not necessarily know the difference between jails and prisons, which is not odd being that they do not have any personal ties to them. However, they are quite different, and even have different purposes. I will be discussing prisons development over time, purpose, and dynamics. First it is important to know the history of them.

            In ancient times, incarceration was one of the least common forms of punishment. Force labor, corporal punishment, and social ostracism were the more common punishments (Prison History,1). After the enlightenment period in France and England, incarceration as a punishment was introduced. After the Enlightenment Era, the were new perspectives on liberty and human nature. People felt as though taking away people’s liberty and autonomy would serve as better punishment.  During this time, the criminal justice system’s focus of punishment was retribution, rather than reform. Due to America being so Christian, their prisons were full of “sinner”. Anyone who would commit a sin, no matter the severity of it, was put in a penitentiary to serve pennants. This did cause an extreme overcrowding issue, which lead to the American punishment system to change (Prison History,1).

            The American prisons finally started to change by the end of the 19^th century. Now their goal was to turn inmates into model citizens. Since then, there have been 5 different purposes of punishment established, which are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restitution. All serving different purposes and all being extremely necessary. The prison system has gotten somewhat better, but there are still a lot of problems concerning their most recent overcrowding issues and recidivism. It has been hard getting those two issues to go down especially because they go hand in hand, getting one down will get the other to go down significantly. So then, what is the main purpose of prisons?

            As mentioned earlier, the main purpose of prisons, for a while, was to reform the inmates. It was important to figure out how to get these inmates to become contributing members of society. The main purpose of prisons is to stop crime and they do this by using the 5 purposes of punishment I mentioned earlier. The problem is that these purposes are only affecting a handful of people. The only thing that is actually preventing these people of reoffending is the fact that they are incarcerated. Therefore, the purpose that has worked the most is incapacitation. However, this only prevents crime until they get out of prison. As soon as these ex-convicts are let back out into the free world they tend to reoffend, because crime is all they know and are familiar with.

            Upon release, most inmates are optimistic about getting their lives together and bettering themselves. A lot of them do not realize that adjusting to day to day life is not as easy as it sounds. After prison, especially, they have been incarcerated for a long period of time, they are not used to working every day, having bills, and responsibilities to attend to. They either consciously or subconsciously commit a crime to get themselves back in prison or jail. It is human nature to resort back to what someone is comfortable with, a lot of times these former inmates are alpha males and have a form of authority in prison and rather be somewhere where they are considered important. Which is why it can be hard to keep them all in line, because the inmates have a different set of rules than the prison rules.

            According to Morris G. Caldwell’s Group Dynamics in the Prison Community, there are two separate groups within them. There is a formal group and an informal group. The formal group is the prison personnel, their purpose is to maintain order, organize work, and help with the rehabilitative programs. They get the inmates in to groups and assign tasks, the inmates are in charge of the maintenance of the prisons. The staff is in charge of making sure the tasks are completed and done properly. The informal group is made up of the inmates, and their roles with each other. These roles include, gambling, sexual perversion, moonshine makers, and so forth. These roles are secretive, but their hierarchy roles are often not. For instance, most guards can tell which inmates are the alphas and which are betas. However, the details of these roles are frequently looked passed. All jail and prisons have their own set of norms and rules; however it is important to understand why society needs institutions like this.

Sources:

www.adpsr.org/home/prison_history

http://quarterlyconversation.com/what-are-prisons-for

What Are Jails?

What are jails? We all know about jails and prisons, but a lot of us do not know the difference between the two. I am going to give a brief explanation on what jails do and their main purposes. The people who are in jail are in there for a variety of reasons, one of them being because they are awaiting trial. Another reason is because their offenses do not require for a long- tern sentence. Most jails hold people for up to a year, however it does vary state by state (Margo Schlanger, 42). The people who are in there awaiting trial can be in there for however long it takes the jury to come up with a verdict, which can be more than a year. Due to the right to a speedy trial, most times it takes less than a year. People who are awaiting transfer to prison also are in jail until taken to the certain prison (Margo Schlanger, 42).  Jails and prisons have a lot of similar issues especially when it comes to being overcrowded.

               Jails, more so than prisons, are overcrowded. This is due to the fact that regardless of what crime a person commits, whether it be murder or burglary, they start out in jail. This is also why jails have a constant population turnover, they are more of a temporary holding facility rather than permanent. Who are the people who are in jails, is the real question? According to Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics, by Mark A Cunniff, the vast majority of people who are in jail are there because they are property and public offenders. In other words, a lot of them are not there for committing heinous or violent crimes. That is contrary to popular belief because most people assume that everybody who is in jail is there because they have done terrible things. Which does not mean that they should receive no type of punishment, but in order to prevent overcrowding maybe it would be smart to not incarcerate them. They should just have to do community service and participate in wellness type programs. It can be pretty difficult to get into jail anyway; most people do not realize that not all arrests lead to jail time (Mark A. Cunniff, 4).

               Most arrests fall under the nonfelony category, these arrests typically do not end in jail booking. Having any warrants will affect whether a person who is arrested ends up in jail or not. Usually, when some has a warrant and gets arrested they end up getting booked into jail. Even if someone gets pulled over for speeding and the officer sees that they person has a warrant, they get taken to jail. However, most people who get arrested and do not have a history of criminal activity usually get let go, and do not even need to post bail, if and when the reason for the arrest was not serious (Mark A. Cunniff, 5-6).

               Sentencing is a huge reason as to why there is overcrowding in jails. Part of the issue is because sometimes sentencing does take time and therefore causing people to be in there for longer than they need to. Another reason is that judges sentences the offenders to meet a certain amount of community service, fines, and other things. When the offenders fail to meet these requirements, they get placed in jail. It is hard to come up with solutions to the overcrowded jail issues without have the offenders seem like they all getting let off easy, or even letting them leave for good behavior can even seem too lenient.

               Being that leaving jail can be fairly easy, depending on the crime, most people just post bail and leave. Bail is usually set pretty high, and most detainees need a bail bondsman to lend them the money. The consequence to not paying the bail bondsman back leads to readmission into jail. However, repeat offenders who have spent time in jail on several occasions, tend to find themselves back in there. With no actual effort to better themselves it is hard to stay out, this is why rehabilitation is crucial. Jails are a complex institution and a lot of people have their opinions on them. I hope that the government is truly doing what they think is best for the good of society. It is really hard when you get so many people with different personalities becoming criminals, and trying to a different approach with every single one them may not be worth their time. Should it be, is the important question?

Sources:

https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/margoschlanger/Documents/Resources/The_Difference_Between_Jails_and_Prisons%20.pdf

http://static.nicic.gov/Library/017209.pdf

Overcrowded Jail and Prisons

The daily population for jails has been steady the last few years. On the other hand, there has been a significant amount of people going into jail each year. In 2015, there were 10.9 million new inmates (Todd D. Minton and Zhen Zeng, 1).  Even though that number sounds high, it has steadily gone down since 2008. From 2006 to 2008 the daily jail population and admissions had both peaked. The daily population reached just a little under 800,000 and the jail admissions hit 260 per every 100,000. However, most jails still have overcrowding issues.

            There have been huge problems with jails and prisons and them being overcrowded. The main reasons are that there are harsher punishments to criminal activity, high return rates, and more strict laws. For example, there was a law called the Three Strikes law, which said once one person has committed more than two felonies they are automatically incarcerated. Some states have done away with this law because it was increasing the incarceration rate dramatically. This law definitely had good intentions but with the significant number of repeat offenders, it was doing more harm than good. The other issues are also causing other states to still have an overcrowding issue.

            One of the main issues is the fact that people who go to prison or jail never end up staying out. Regardless of the Three Strikes Law, criminals end up back in corrections anyway. I feel that it is because they are not receiving any kind of rehabilitation or counseling. If the government was to try and help these people understand that gravity of their mistakes, and spend the money and rehabilitation programs and not in incarceration, then it might be better for society. Obviously, not everyone is going to take well to the programs, but I believe a good amount will. Most of the people who continue to offend, do it because they do not know how to live another life style.

            Most criminals are from low income homes and get involved into criminal behavior to help get by. I believe if the government was more focused of rehabilitation rather than punishment, then there will be less overcrowded institutions. Showing them that there are other life styles out there and facilitating them in achieving another life style can really make a change. However, I understand that there are going to be people who are not going to benefit at all from programs. Some of the criminals who have committed more serious crimes i.e. rape and murder, most likely will not benefit from rehabilitation programs. Other criminal who have committed less serious crimes can strongly gain from them.

            However, our government has five punishment purposes and rehabilitation is not the priority, but it did make the list. The five purposes are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution (Lisa Storm, 1). Deterrence basically puts fear in potential criminals by severely punishing those who do commit crimes. Incapacitation, literally removes the criminal from society by house arrest, incarceration, or execution. Rehabilitation focuses on trying to change the criminal behavior using special treatment. Retribution focuses on making society feel as though the crime was dealt with adequately and no one should have to take justice into their own hands. Restitution helps prevent crime by making the criminal pay for any of the possible expenses to the victim or their family (Lisa Storm, 1).

            All five purposes have logical ideologies as far as crime prevention go. Not all of them have the most secure outcomes including rehabilitation. Unfortunately, people are too different and each purpose affects people differently. For some it works and for others it does not that is probably why they have a few different methods. According to an article I read, rehabilitation is the one purpose that helps the most with lowering recidivism (Lisa Storm, 1). People need to realize that that is our best option for minimizing the amount of people incarcerated.  

            Even with all these methods working together, the issue is still the fact that jails are overcrowded. It is apparent that the one that has showed the most results has been rehabilitation. The one problem is that few people are willing to let their tax money to fund treatment programs for criminals. What they are not thinking of is the potential money that they will be saving.

Sources:

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/4373?e=storm_1.0-ch01_s05

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji15.pdf