Correctional Rehabilitation: What It Is and How It Works

Rehabilitation is the key goal of corrections. The goal is based on the idea that people can be treated and avoid committing crimes in the future. Rehabilitation was the primary component of the corrections system at the beginning of the 20th century. However, the popularity of the intervention began declining between the 1970s and 1980s. In the past few years, rehabilitation in correctional facilities has regained attention. The intervention entails numerous programs such as mental health, treatment for substance abuse, and opportunities for education and skills acquisition. The aim is to address the factors causing individuals to commit the crime. Rehabilitation was introduced in courts through specialized courts. The system offers moral assistance to promote behavioral changes by ensuring that rehabilitation causes positive effects. Rehabilitation helps communities progress because criminals are punished accordingly and released back into society as law-compliant, productive, and responsible individuals. In addition, rehabilitation is linked to public safety concerns, particularly when criminals are freed from jails or prisons. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of rehabilitation as the dominant model for corrections as an ethical issue and make appropriate recommendations about the policy.  

Adoption of Rehabilitation as the Dominant Corrections Model in the United States  

Understanding the reasons for adopting rehabilitation in correctional facilities in the U.S. history and the effectiveness of the model is vital in examining its ethical aspects and implications as a dominant framework in correctional facilities. The concept of correctional rehabilitation to reforms offenders in the United States goes back to when the penitentiary was invented in the 1800s. Prisons were viewed not as places where criminals were just put or made to suffer for their offenses. Instead, it was considered a place to change their spirits and behaviors. However, there is no consensus on the reasons behind the invention of penitentiaries in the United States. Some scholars argue that penitentiaries were invented as a humanitarian initiative to do away with severe punishments such as death sentences and whipping posts (APA, 2014). Others claim that it was caused by changes in social settings leading to the idea that solving crime can be realized by removing criminals from existing criminogenic and contributing environments and putting them in orderly contexts (APA, 2014). Also, some scholars believe that they were a sinister plan by the elites in society to make an institutional tool to discipline the poor and make them productive workers. 

Regardless, the corrections system in the United States has tried different interventions to address or reduce crime rates. Among these interventions is the use of rehabilitation to address crime. According to APA (2014), correctional rehabilitation is an effective method to change behavior when offenders are released from prisons and help them integrate into society. During the rehabilitation process, offenders develop skills and knowledge on returning to the community and leading productive lives. The rehabilitation process in the U.S. is highly debated. Most offenders in prisons are those who have repeated offenses. Through rehabilitation, they acquire the skills and knowledge they need to benefit themselves in the future (Raynor & Robinson, 2005). It is an in-prison method to assist criminals to reduce recidivism and incarceration once they are released back into the community. It is a vital model because it helps offenders take care of themselves and others. However, the intervention is a sophisticated process because offenders are separated from members of the public and need to live with other individuals who recognize crime as their way of ling and are unwilling to change their practices. As a result, rehabilitation as the dominant corrections model can be ineffective because individuals might identify better ways of offending without being caught or be forced into crime. 

Relevant Facts  

Existing evidence indicates that most people incarcerated in the United States have mental health problems. U.S. jails and prisons disproportionately incarcerate people with a current or a history of mental illness. Moreover, existing facilities in the community do not meet the increased need for mental illness treatment. Law enforcement officers are, in most cases, involved in responding to mental issues crises which in some cases leads to violence or incarceration (American Action Forum, 2020). Today, mental illness is a pervasive issue among inmates. Statistics show that 64% of all offenders in jails have some form of mental health issues (American Action Forum, 2020). In addition, 45 percent of all the offenders in federal prisons suffer from mental health problems (American Action Forum, 2020). Also, substance abuse is a prevalent issue among inmates in jails and prisons. Evidence indicates that the primary issue causing overpopulation of U.S. jails and prisons is the inability of the country to address mental health problems in society.   

Moreover, the increase in incarceration rates in the United States is attributed to substance abuse and drug dealing or trafficking. There exists a close relationship between crime and substance abuse. Substance or drug abusers have an increased likelihood of committing criminal acts to purchase the drugs. Also, most criminals are usually under the influence of illegal substances when committing a crime. According to Rafaiee et al. (2013), in 2010, seventy percent of all male prison inmates were substance abusers compared to only 11.2 percent of the entire male population in the country. Alcohol abuse is associated with 21.4 percent of all aggressive crimes. In another study conducted in Australia, 82 percent of all prisoners were substance abusers (Rafaiee et al., 2013). Abuse of drugs and substances such as alcohol, heroin, opium, and cannabis is linked to an increased risk of committing violent crimes such as robbery and murder. 

Moreover, most people in the criminal justice system are racial or ethnic minorities who experience disparities in access to mental health services, education, employment and are disproportionately affected by the war against drugs. They are likely to have low incomes or experience poverty due to a lack of income to meet their needs. Besides, lack of mental health services for mental health disorders such as bipolar and major depression increases the risk of committing a crime. The largest proportion of incarcerated individuals are people of color, such as African Americans and Hispanics. These disparities in sentencing are in some ways linked to the war on drugs and racial profiling when cases are being processed. In addition, people of color are likely to be considered drug abusers due to possible profiling. Therefore, a significant number of inmates can benefit from support instead of punishment. Criminalizing or incarcerating individuals with such vulnerabilities raises ethical concerns regarding the just reaction to a crime or offense committed by vulnerable individuals.  

Although evidence indicates that the rehabilitation model is in most cases effective, adopting the intervention as the dominant model in correction facilities requires consideration of ethical issues to ensure that the program is beneficial to both inmates and the public. The criminal justice system assumes that the intervention must not be political and costly. It should be achievable and in line with the existing laws. Besides, it must be justifiable and accessible to prisoners. Through the model, prisoners must be accorded the right judgment without favoritism. Rehabilitation must be cost-effective to ensure affordability and avoid financial burden on citizens and correctional facilities. Rehabilitation is founded on the idea that individuals engage in crime because of mental, economic, and social issues (Raynor & Robinson, 2005). If the problems associated with these factors are solved, the possibility of offending in the future reduces. 

Although rehabilitation appears different from punishment, the truth is that inmates are rehabilitated within the punishment setting. Whether an individual is placed on probation or sentenced to prison, it is expected that they will go through some form of treatment or intervention to help fix the factors contributing to crime (Raynor & Robinson, 2005). Although treatment is considered beneficial to both the offender and the public by many people, the intervention is mandated by the court system. In most cases, offenders see it as a type of punishment. They perceive it as one of the things they must do to satisfy courts. 

  Ethical Issues/Dilemma  

  The ethical dilemma in making rehabilitation the dominant method in correctional facilities revolves around using rehabilitation as the predominant method of punishing offenders for preventing crime and its impact on the offended individuals who feel that retributive justice should be upheld to ensure they are avenged. Rehabilitation is vital and effective in preventing crime in the future. At the same time, punishing offenders appropriately and as they deserve is essential in reducing crime rates and cause some level of satisfaction due to perceiving execution of justice for the offended parties or society. This section examines this ethical dilemma from two ethical perspectives to determine if making rehabilitation the superior model in corrections would be moral or not.  

a. Utilitarian Ethics  

Utilitarianism is among the ethical theories that address how to determine the goodness or morality of an action. It identifies right from wrong by emphasizing outcomes (Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). Thus, it is a type of consequentialism. Utilitarianism proposes that the most ethical decision is the one that generates the greatest good for the majority or most people (Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). The largest good for the majority is demonstrated by the total utilities gained from a state by all the people in a particular community. In determining if punishment is justified, a utilitarian perspective will try to anticipate the possible consequences of administering the punishment (Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). If punishing an offender would generate more happiness than bad or sadness compared to other options, then the sentence in question is justified. Crime produces unhappiness, and therefore, a utilitarian viewpoint will seek to establish a situation in which the balance between happiness over causing unhappiness is maximized (Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). The primary focus would not be to punish the offenders but to reduce crime rates. 

Utilitarianism focuses on three approaches by which punishment can reduce the rates of crime. The first one is that threatening individuals using punishment can deter likely criminals. Suppose a person feels the urge to engage in a particular crime but is aware that it is unlawful and a punishment accompanies violation. In that case, the potential criminal is less likely to participate in criminal activity. The second approach is that punishment incapacitates offenders. When an offender is placed in prison for a particular time, the individual is less likely to cause harm during the confinement period. The third perspective argues that punishment has the ability to rehabilitate offenders (Raynor & Robinson, 2005). Rehabilitation entails making an effort to enhance an offender's behavior so that their potential to re-offend reduces. 

            A utilitarian perspective argues that rehabilitation produces the greatest happiness for the majority. When the potential of an offender to re-offend reduces, society is happy because crime rates reduce significantly. In addition, it reduces the costs incurred in the criminal justice system. As a result, rehabilitation reduces the financial burden on the general public. Existing evidence indicates that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate worldwide, and as a result, the costs are high. For example, in 2016, the Bureau of Justice indicates that a total of $295.6 billion was used on corrections (American Action Forum, 2020). Approximately 2.2 million individuals were incarcerated. This shows that each incarcerated offender used an estimated $134,400 (American Action Forum, 2020). These statistics justify the need for rehabilitation because few people are likely to re-offend. It is a cheaper option than imprisonment, thus reducing the public's financial costs in incarcerating offenders. Individuals are likely to commit a crime to economic factors such as poverty, substance abuse, and mental disorders. For example, when an individual commits a crime due to financial challenges caused by a lack of employment or a source of income, providing education to improve employability chances reduces the risk of committing a crime in the future. High education attainment is associated with better income hence reduced risk of committing some forms of crime such as robbery with violence. For individuals with substance abuse problems, appropriate treatment in correctional facilities can reduce their likelihood of re-offending in the future. 

The case of Norway supports utilitarianism's emphasis on rehabilitation as the dominant framework in correctional facilities. Twenty years ago, Norway shifted its focus from punishing offenders to rehabilitating them as a crime reduction strategy (American Action Forum, 2020). As a result, the country experienced a significant reduction in re-offending rates to approximately 25 percent within five years. Utilitarians argue that most people in the criminal justice system experience vulnerabilities which make them susceptible to committing offenses. Rehabilitation can successfully eliminate these vulnerabilities, thus cause the largest amount of good to society. Safety improves, the loss incurred due to theft/robbery reduces, and the different stakeholders' economic status, such as the offenders, their families, and communities, improves. Therefore, rehabilitation is beneficial to offenders, their families, government, and entire society leading to the generation of maximum good for the majority. Lack of repair would only benefit the offended individuals because they will feel that vengeance has been executed, but this does not address the root cause of the problem to ensure that all society members are happy. Utilitarianism does not consider the rights of individuals. Therefore, individuals might feel that justice is not served when offenders are not made to suffer for their wrongdoing as they deserve. 

b. Retributive Justice Ethics 

From a retributive justice perspective, rehabilitation does not ensure justice for then offended individuals. While utilitarianism focuses on crime reduction for society's benefit, retributive justice focuses on punishing the offender for the crime committed. From a disciplinary ethics perspective, a convicted criminal should be inflicted with pain or punishment to get even, deter others from committing a similar crime, or as an outcome of penalty. It looks backward at the offense committed as the reason for punishment. People have free will and have the ability to make rational decisions (Koneke, 2011). However, offenders who are not mentally fit or are incompetent are not punished. Every other person who makes a conscious decision to disrupt society's balance must be punished. There are multiple more perspectives for implementing punishment instead of rehabilitation. 

  Most retributivists believe that offenders should be punished as they deserve to force them to suffer for making others suffer. Others propose that punishing an offender protects the rights of offenders and society (Koneke, 2011). Society demonstrates respect for a criminal's free will through punishment. The rehabilitation approach cannot make sense where criminal behavior is freely willed and is out of a rational decision (Koneke, 2011). Therefore, since when a sane person commits a crime is a free choice, although fuelled by different factors, there is nothing about such individuals that can be changed through rehabilitation. Through punishment, as they deserve, they will consciously decide to avoid criminal activities and serve as an example to others.  

In addition, the perspective does not consider root causes such as lack of employment and substance abuse. It promotes punishment instead of rehabilitation as the dominant corrections strategy to reduce crimes. When criminals are punished, they pay the debt to society and reintegrate without guilt because they have been made to suffer as they deserve. The other rationale for promoting punishment over rehabilitation is that it indicates denunciation. Based on retributive justice ethics, discipline shows that society condemns crime. Therefore, rehabilitation as the dominant corrections intervention may promote the notion that crime is like medical issues that need to be treated and punishing individuals is not essential. Innocent individuals must not be punished because they have not committed any wrong based on the Kantian ethics, which are part of the retributive justice ethical system. A retributive justice viewpoint sees failure to consider taking desert and justice as the main problem of rehabilitation (Koneke, 2011). This approach does not put into consideration the idea of balancing happiness over unhappiness. Besides, rehabilitation is likely to be affected by other ethical issues such as the continued introduction of prohibited drugs and other criminal behaviors during the rehabilitation process because individuals are not made to suffer for their choices or wrongdoing as they should. Such activities impair behavior correction, and the offenders might fall back to crime after being released. Therefore, from a retributive justice perspective, rehabilitation denies justice to both society and the offended because the offender does not experience suffering as they should. 

Policy Recommendations 

Rehabilitation should be made the dominant model for corrections. A utilitarian approach would produce more good for offenders and society because the root causes of crime are addressed, leading to reduced crime and the possibility of re-offending. Treating offenders ensures that they acquire appropriate skills and attitudes to change their criminal behavior and conduct productive lives. Although a retributive justice perspective such as Kant's ethics argues that correctional rehabilitation coddles offenders, this perspective is shortsighted because rehabilitation focuses on offenders' and society's protection. The intervention makes individuals less criminal, and fewer individuals are victimized, leading to a safer society. Rehabilitation is both reactive and proactive. Its goal is to help offenders succeed within law limits, thus prevent re-offending. A utilitarian approach considers all possible consequences of an action to determine the balance between happiness over being unhappy. Offenders should be rehabilitated for vulnerabilities such as chemical dependency, mental health disorders, and violence to prevent committing the crime in the future. 

In addition, educational programs equip them with the skills and knowledge required to compete in the labor market. However, this does not mean that retributive justice should be abandoned. Criminals should be punished to make them regret their actions, but the main focus should be on reforming them to avoid re-offending. Addressing the factors leading to criminal behavior is the only effective solution to stopping me hence benefit the majority. For example, an offender can be imprisoned for several years to give the public a sense of justice and satisfy their desire to revenge and at the same time take the individual through educational programs or substance abuse treatment. The primary goal is to reform the criminal instead of vengeance. Such a model is practical, justifiable, and sustainable because the ethics of justice for all and good for the majority is ensured. However, it is important to note that rehabilitation as the dominant corrections model could be faced with numerous challenges, such as inmates who decline to enroll in rehabilitation programs. For example, inmates convicted for drugs or substance abuse are the most difficult to convince to accept rehabilitation services until they decide to quit drugs. In addition, gang-related activities are difficult to rehabilitate because evidence shows that most of them look forward to resuming the lifestyle instead of stopping. Therefore, it is vital to ensure that measures such as informing them of making wrong decisions are implemented. 

Conclusively, rehabilitation in corrections entails reforming criminal behavior to reduce the possibility of re-offending and finding oneself in the criminal justice system again. The model assumes that individuals are pushed into crime by different factors such as lack of a source of income such as employment, mental illness, and substance abuse. Addressing these factors reduces criminality. From a utilitarian viewpoint, making rehabilitation the dominant is morally right or ethical because it generates maximum good for the majority. In contrast, a retributive justice perspective argues that rehabilitation does not promote justice because of a sense of vengeance. By making offenders suffer based on the severity of their crimes is not generated. By making rehabilitation the superior corrections model, criminals are reformed and at the same time receive punishment for their wrong actions through imprisonment. 

References 

American Action Forum. (2020, July 16).  The economic costs of the U.S. criminal justice system .  https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-economic-costs-of-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system 

American Psychological Association (APA). (2014).  Incarceration Nation . https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration 

Koneke, V. (2011).  Retributive justice: Psychology of justice . GRIN Verlag. 

Lazari-Radek, K. D., & Singer, P. (2017).  Utilitarianism: A very short introduction . Oxford University Press. 

Rafaiee, R., Olyaee, S., & Sargolzaiee, A. (2013). The relationship between the type of crime and drugs in addicted prisoners in Zahedan central prison.  International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction ,  2 (3), 139-140.  https://doi.org/10.5812/ijhrba.13977 

Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2005).  Rehabilitation, crime and justice . Springer.