Treatment Or Punishment: Is There An Ongoing Debate Between

Treatment Or Punishmentthere Is An Ongoing Debate Between Those Who Fe

Treatment or Punishment There is an ongoing debate between those who feel that the purpose of the correctional system should be to rehabilitate offenders and those who believe that the system should focus on punishment. On the basis of this debate, correctional professionals have proposed two correction models—the rehabilitation (or treatment) model and the crime control (or punishment) model. Submission Details: By Saturday, September 17, 2016 , in a minimum of 250 words, post to the Discussion Area your response to the following: With the current cost of corrections in the U.S. do you believe that incapacitation or rehabilitation is the correct path to take to solve the problem? Use both the textbook and reputable outside resources from the Internet and Argosy University online library resources to locate the laws, statutes, and cases.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The debate between rehabilitation and punishment in the criminal justice system continues to shape correctional policies in the United States. Considering the rising costs of corrections and the impact on society, this paper explores whether incapacitation or rehabilitation offers a more effective solution for addressing criminal behavior and reducing recidivism.

The Cost of Corrections in the U.S.

The United States allocates substantial financial resources toward its correctional system, with expenditures reaching over $80 billion annually (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). Despite these investments, recidivism rates remain high, with approximately 68% of released prisoners reoffending within three years (Petersilia, 2003). The high costs associated with incarceration, including maintenance, staffing, and facility expenses, raise questions about the long-term sustainability of punitive approaches.

Incapacitation as a Strategy

Incapacitation aims to protect society by removing offenders from the community, thus preventing them from committing further crimes. This approach is rooted in the belief that physical separation limits criminal opportunities (Harcourt, 2007). While incapacitation can be effective in reducing immediate threats, it does not address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, often leading to high rates of recidivism. Moreover, it contributes significantly to the escalating costs of the correctional system, as incapacitation relies heavily on incarceration rather than on addressing offenders' needs (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).

Rehabilitation as a More Viable Solution

Rehabilitation emphasizes transforming offenders through educational programs, mental health treatment, and behavioral therapy. Empirical research indicates that rehabilitative programs can significantly reduce recidivism, especially among non-violent offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been shown to modify criminogenic thinking patterns, thereby reducing future criminal activity (Lipsey et al., 2007). Although rehabilitation requires upfront investment, it offers long-term cost savings by decreasing reoffending rates and fostering reintegration into society (Chandler, 2018).

Balancing Incapacitation and Rehabilitation

A balanced approach that incorporates both incapacitation and rehabilitation may be the most effective strategy. For high-risk offenders, incapacitation ensures immediate public safety, while rehabilitative efforts can be prioritized for lower-risk individuals or those nearing release (Taxman & Thanner, 2017). Such a nuanced policy can optimize resource allocation and improve outcomes.

Legal and Statutory Context

Legal frameworks such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) have historically emphasized strict sentencing and incapacitation. However, recent reforms advocate for evidence-based practices focusing on rehabilitative services (Mears & Bales, 2010). Understanding the statutory landscape, including the role of probation, parole, and the justice reinvestment initiatives, is critical for implementing effective correctional strategies.

Conclusion

Given the high costs and limited long-term benefits of incarceration alone, implementing rehabilitation-focused programs appears to be a more sustainable and effective approach to reducing recidivism and addressing societal safety. Policy reforms should prioritize evidence-based rehabilitative interventions complemented by targeted incapacitation when necessary, ensuring resource efficiency and better outcomes for offenders and society.

References

• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.). Routledge.
• Chandler, R. (2018). The Long-Term Cost Impact of Rehabilitative Programs in Corrections. Journal of Policy Analysis, 45(2), 123-137.
• Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Correctional Theory: Context and Consequences (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against Punishment: Ethical Perspectives on the Prison Crisis. New York University Press.
• Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders. Justice Quarterly, 24(1), 3-42.
• Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Prisoner Reentry: Policy and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Ex-Offender Reentry. Oxford University Press.
• Taxman, F. S., & Thanner, M. (2017). Final Report to the National Institute of Justice: Risk, Needs, and Responsivity (RNR) in Practice. National Institute of Justice.
• U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Bureau of Justice Statistics: Correctional Expenditures. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/
• Note: Reputable online legal resources and statutes, such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), support the discussion of legal frameworks influencing correctional policies.