Rehabilitation can and will work for nearly everyone who has not committed serial acts of a specific crime. The problem is, prisons do not even offer these programs in the first
One needs to know, understand, and truly agree that the offense(s) committed which placed them there are not acceptable in society, and are inherently wrong. True and legitimate contrition must be required. Moreover, behavior while incarcerated should be well above average. For example, absolutely no prison disturbances, riots, or bad interactions with prison staff ought to be strictly held as a standard. I think that proof of remorse or contrition should be required in some way, as well as a legitimate attempt at self-rehabilitation, such as furtherance of education, perhaps spirituality, kindness, honesty, and overactive compliance.
Offenders don’t realize the reality when reentering society because they aren’t giving the necessaries resources. The reality is how the criminal justice system have label them. When an offender is release from prison their life is over due to the way the criminal justice have develop. Many would concur that there is a problem with strength based. As clearly demonstrated there will always be pros and cons towards an issue.
Yes, I would agree that some people are just evil, but that is NOT the majority. That is a very, very small minority group and for that, they should serve the appropriate amount of time (Just Deserts). Rehabilitation focuses on the idea that, for the most part, criminals commit crimes due to factors outside their control. I argue that the majority of life choices made by criminals’ and noncriminals’ alike are because of these outside factors. These outside factors shape our actions in all cases and must be adjusted to help people’s process in society.
It shouldn’t be that way. For those who commit a lower-level crime like drug possession, petty theft, or selling marijuana, prison is not just unfair, it is also a bad sanction for society at large. Reduce sentence minimums and maximums currently on the books. If someone commits a serious crime, like robbery, they should be punished. But there’s little evidence that staying in prison for such long periods of time, such as the 20 or 30-year sentences imposed, will rehabilitate prisoners.
Some parts of the public including myself believes intermediate sanctions are a good thing. The other half of the public and the criminal justice system seem to be going with the “tough on crime” motto where they give intermediate sanctions no thought whatsoever. I believe every offender has the ability to be rehabilitated. Everything learned can be unlearned. Yes, it’s hard to unlearn something that’s part of someone’s life, but it’s not impossible.
The justice system in the United States of America is not fair. Michelle Alexander writes a great article “Locked Up In America” describing how people gets into the justice system and how their life is when coming out of jail. People that are convicted of any crime they are labeled as criminals and felons. Criminals does not get properly punished for their crimes if they did they wouldn’t be so many people going in and out of jail. The justice system should have different ways of punishing a person according to the crime they commit, just by putting them in jail and assuming that is going to change them is not a good way of going about that.
Imagine what they might think for the society when they get the right to make a decision for the society. Think about the values they might have for the society if they did something wrong, that had a bad affect to the society. If they destroyed our values in the past how do we know of which values they have in mind. Is it for a good cause of the society ar a bad cause to the society? Though, criminals should have second chance in their life to change their bad habits, and be a good influence.
There are many factors involved in crime prevention and punishment that may make it appear convoluted. But time and time again after convicts have been released from jail or from a rehabilitation center they go back to a life of crime within five years. Why would they go back to their life of crime you ask? It’s because our rehabilitation center is flawed and our punishments are weak. Our system is weak.
People tend to learn from their mistakes. Hawthorne says, “She knew that her deed was evil; she could have no faith, therefore, that its result would be good. Day after day, she looked fearfully into the child’s expanding nature; ever dreading to detect some dark and wild peculiarity, that should correspond with the guiltiness to which she owed her being” (61). She knew what she did was wrong and she know knows he has to live the rest of her life with guilt. People should give those who make not smart choices a second chance because those people might of realized that they broke a law so they might of gotten help from others to get back on their feet and become a nice sinless person.
Though, this issue can be solved by implementing more rehabilitation and improving our re-entry programs. Due to the releasing of about 95 percent of criminals, our community needs to better our treatment and rehabilitation programs. If more offenders went into a treatment facility, rather than serving time, they would most likely not
They must re-enter a constantly changing society that is sometimes judgmental and unwelcoming. For some people, these wrongful convictions are the result of government misconduct, false confessions, inadequate defense and prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate forensic science. These are just some of the causes of wrongful incarceration. Even with laws implemented to hinder these causes of wrongful incarceration; they are still prominent issues. The question does the punishment or time fit the crime of wrongful incarceration comes when it is time to prosecute those who have a hand in the incarceration of these people.
Also, There should be more emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment because it would make people go to prison less often. With more open options for prison length decision, judges could have a more open mind towards how to determine the length of a
They have more opportunities because they have not been locked in a cell for a number of years. Instead in restorative justice the offender is required to do things like community service and communicating with the victim of their crime. Giving offenders more options after they have committed a crime can help them get back on their feet because they would have a better chance of getting a job. They would have a better chance of getting a job because they wouldn’t be out of a job as long as if they were in jail for years. Also hopefully by the offender not spending years in jail and doing things like community service they learn their lesson and will be less likely to commit another crime in the future compared to someone who spent years in jail.
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
