The purpose of the criminal justice system is to discourage the perpetration of crime. To fulfill this purpose, the system relies on a number of techniques and frameworks. For instance, in the US, focus is placed on punishment and this often occurs at the expense of rehabilitation. In other jurisdictions, the criminal justice system places emphasis on restoring offenders and rehabilitating them such that upon their release, they become productive and law-abiding members of their communities. There are three theoretical frameworks that underlie the different criminal justice systems: retribution, rehabilitation and restoration. To understand how the systems function and the impact that they have, it is essential to examine the similarities and the differences that set the three theories apart.
One of the similarities among the three theories is that they all focus on offenders. This is as opposed as having the criminal justice system direct its resources and attention at the victims of crime. For example, retribution is underlain by the belief that perpetrators should receive punishment that is in line with the gravity of the crime that they have committed (Lippman, 2006). For instance, a traffic offense could attract a fine while murder is punished with a lengthy prison sentence. The retributive theory is based on the philosophy of “one eye for another”. On the other hand, rehabilitation pursues reformation. This theory challenges the criminal justice system to strive to produce offenders who have abandoned crime and are committed to following the law (Lippman, 2006). Restoration also focuses on the offender and is more concerned with punishment. It requires the offender to offer some form of compensation to the victims of their crime (Ness & Strong, 2013). For example, an individual who has committed fraud may be asked to issue monetary compensation to their victims. While it is true that the three theories are different in how they operate, they are brought together by the similarity that they either punish or seek to reform the offender.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The three theories discussed above are more different than they are similar. Similarities do not seem to extend beyond the fact that they are all concerned with offenders. There are a number of key differences. Among them regards the outcomes that they seek to accomplish. As noted above, the purpose of rehabilitative justice is the reformation of the offender (Graham, 2016). To fulfill this purpose, rehabilitative justice implements such initiatives as education and training. Furthermore, rehabilitative justice aims to reintegrate offenders into their communities. It provides them with the skills and knowledge that they need to find employment and fit into communities. On the other hand, restorative justice aims to fix the damage caused by crime (Clamp, 2013). It has already been noted that this theory requires offenders to compensate their victims. Retributive justice is more punitive and harsh in its approach to dealing with offenders. This appears to be the theory underlying the American criminal justice system. In the US, perpetrators of grave crimes can expect long prison sentences or death.
Another issue that distinguishes the three theories is their effectiveness on deterrence. Essentially, among the main aims of any criminal justice system is to discourage criminal activity. The demands for compensation of victims, the lengthy prison sentences and the focus on reformation are all targeted at persuading offenders to abide by the law. Research indicates that retributive justice is highly ineffective (Koerth-Baker, 2016). For example, tougher penalties have been shown to be ineffective in reducing criminal activity or recidivism. It is little wonder that despite its tough approach to crime, the US continues to grapple with a serious crime problem. Instead of helping the nation to combat crime, the retributive model has merely created such other struggles as over-crowding and police brutality. Restorative justice is far more effective. While it may not discourage criminal activity, it attends to the needs of victims. While the other models create little to no room for victim participation, restorative justice recognizes that the victims have a critical role to play. Rehabilitation is remarkably effective in reducing crime. For example, in their text, Berenji, Chou and D’Orsogna (2014) endorse rehabilitative programs as holding the key to eradicating the crime problem. Given that rehabilitation and restoration are more effective than retribution, the US criminal justice system is encouraged to abandon the latter in favor of the former.
The assumptions that the three theories make regarding the causes of crime and the essence of human nature are another issue that helps to distinguish them. Basically, retribution assumes that individuals are directly responsible for their criminal behavior (Lippman, 2006). It disregards the role that such factors as poverty and limited access to opportunities play in fueling criminal activity. On the other hand, restoration insists that humans are inherently good and through investment and compassionate response, it is possible to reform offenders. Restorative justice also understands that by incorporating victims into the criminal justice process, offenders are challenged to acknowledge the wrong they committed and to reform (Lippman, 2006). Since rehabilitative and restorative justice theories recognize the humanity of both offenders and victims, it is little wonder that they are more effective compared to retributive justice.
In conclusion, restoration, rehabilitation and retribution provide the stakeholders in the criminal justice systems with options that they can use in determining their approach to crime and offenders. Whereas retributive justice is more concerned with punishment, restoration and rehabilitation aim to inspire offenders to abandon crime and contribute to the development of their communities. Furthermore, restorative and rehabilitative justice are also more effective in combating crime. Therefore, the US is urged to move away from retribution and implement policies that are consistent with restoration and rehabilitation.
References
Berenji, B., Chou, T., & D’Orsogna, M. R. (2014). Recidivism and rehabilitation of criminal offenders: a carrot and stick evolutionary game. Plos One. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085531
Clamp, K. (2013). Restorative justice in transition. London: Routledge.
Graham, H. (2016). Rehabilitation work: supporting desistance and recovery. London: Routledge.
Koerth-Baker, M. (2016). Crime despite punishment . UNdark . Retrieved May 1, 2019 from https://undark.org/article/deterrence-punishments-dont-reduce-crime/
Lippman, M. (2006). Punishment and sentencing. In Contemporary criminal law: concepts, cases and controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Ness, D. W. V., & Strong, K. H. (2013). Restoring justice: an introduction to restorative justice. London: Routledge.
