The role of the Law Enforcement Department in any democratic society is to ensure the fragile equity between an individual’s liberty and society’s demand for protection. This is conducted through the four major theories of punishment. This paper focuses on the differences and similarities of the four theories of punishment and critically appraises the education program within rehabilitation centers.
Similarities and Differences between the four Punishment Theories
The theories of punishment can be categorized into four; deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and common ground. They, however, have their own similarities and differences in terms of implementation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Differences
An incapacitation is a form of punishment that focuses on the positive prevention of future crimes. This is usually done through relocating criminals from society to prisons. The offender’s ability to commit crimes is taken away by life jail time. An example of incapacitation includes the three-strikes sentencing and back-to-back life sentencing.
Deterrence, contrarily, differs from incapacitation as it focuses on the idea of punishment as a threat. It is aims at preventing the offender from committing further crimes and at the same time serve as an example to others who may have the intention of indulging in similar crimes. Here, the offender is released after serving jail time contrary to incapacitation. Examples include serving 7 years in jail for armed robbery or receiving a ticket or license suspension for not following traffic laws.
Rehabilitation, on the other hand, aims at transforming a criminal from previous criminal desires to becoming a productive member of the society. It includes a huge range of programs ranging from mental health, educational services, and substance abuse. Here, the criminal is given a second chance to go back to the society as a changed and improved person.
The common ground form of punishment concentrates on crime victim’s need and requires criminal offenders to indulge in community service or financial restitution in order to compensate the victims or the society. It differs from other forms of punishment since it focuses on the victim’s needs which are often underestimated.
Similarities
There are several similarities between the four theories of punishment. To start with, all the four punishment forms offer justice and ensures that all the offender receive the deserved punishment. Secondly, the forms of punishment are established on the basis of preventing the offenders from re-offending while at the same time serve as an example to those with an aim of committing the same offense. Lastly, all forms of punishment play the role of maintaining law and order in the society thus creating peaceful environments governed by the justice system.
Importance of Education Programs in Prisons to Inmates
The rehabilitation process in prisons includes education activities with courses such as vocational education, basic literacy programs, secondary school equivalency programs, and tertiary education (Amoteo, Jin & Kling, 2009). Inmates entering prison centers, averagely, have lower education levels than the normal population. Offering education services in prisons is vital in reducing the rates of recidivism by engaging inmates in more productive activities, making them helpful in different ways after being released. In the US, the study shows that for every taxpayer’s dollar spent in prison education, four to five dollars are saved (Gaskew, 2015). Prison education’s main objective is to make the inmates be able to get employed after serving jail time by improving their education and skills.
Constraints of Establishment of Prison Education
The biggest constraint is the lack of funding. A research by RAND Corporation found out that state-level allocation of funds to prison education sharply reduced during the 2009-2012 economic decline years. This made the prison education program even tougher. Prison education systems also have fewer teachers and fewer courses offered. In addition to that, lack of gain to favorable study and learning environments has made the establishment of the education program hard. Lastly, inaccessibility to electronic sources such as computers makes the learning process hard, not to mention the examinations tests which are computer-based.
Components and Benefits of Prison Education Development and Implementation
The components of prison education include programs like Adult Basic Education (ABE), Adult Secondary Education, Vocational Education, Special Education, and Life Skills-Based Education (Amoteo, Jin & Kling, 2009). Inmates who decide to engage in these programs can end up employed in various businesses or even self-employed after serving jail time. These programs play a vital role in the re-entry of inmates back to society. A number of research programs show the relation between the development of prison education programs and the decrease in recidivism rate (Gaskew, 2015). It should also be noted that a constructive outcome in employment has also been experienced.
Conclusion
In conclusion, offenders should receive punishments equivalent to their criminal deeds either in the form of deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, or common ground. For the case of rehabilitation, prison facilities should be funded and equipped with the necessary manpower to conduct the rehabilitation process smoothly. This will play a major role in transforming inmates into productive citizens after serving their time at the rehabilitation centers.
References
Amodeo, A., Jin, Y., & Kling, J. (2009). Preparing for life beyond prison walls [electronic resource] : the literacy of incarcerated adults near release / Andrea Amodeo, Ying Jin, Joanna Kling . [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 2009. Retrieved from http://165.193.178.96/login?url=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsgpr%26AN%3dedsgpr.ocn733291338%26site%3deds-live
Gaskew, T. (2015). Developing a Prison Education Pedagogy. New Directions for Community Colleges , 2015 (170), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20145
