Authored By: Ruth Araya
Addis Ababa University
Abstract
Understanding the theoretical and practical frameworks governing criminal justice systems requires an understanding of punishment theories. Retribution and rehabilitation stand out as two opposing philosophies among the others. Every theory offers a different viewpoint on why and how society has to punish criminals.
A theory of punishment which is known as retribution places a strong emphasis on moral responsibility and the notion that criminals ought to face consequences for their actions. The foundation of this theory is the conviction that when a law is broken, justice must be done.
The following are the main principles of retributive justice:
- Moral Responsibility
- Proportionality
- Justice as an End in Itself
Retribution and rehabilitation are the two main theories of punishment in criminal justice which is examined in this article. Retribution places a strong emphasis on moral responsibility and argues that criminals should be punished in proportion to their offenses. but Rehabilitation, on the other hand, uses different of supportive programs to change offenders in order to stop them from committing crimes in the future. This article considers the benefits and shortcomings of both theories, highlighting the unremitting conversation around the superlative way to contest crime and spread public safety in contemporary criminal justice frameworks.
Introduction
The logical fundamentals of criminal justice systems about globally are mostly grounded on theories of punishment. Consequently understanding the explanation for punishment is becoming more and more significant as societies brawl with mounting crime rates and altering social norms because of it. Two contrasting patterns that signify diverse viewpoints on justice, morality, and the role of the government are retribution and rehabilitation. The function of this article is to examine these theories also seeing how they may shake the present day legal measures and societal results. The significance of this subject is mostly about current deliberations about criminal justice improvement, as legislators search for hands-on ways to stabilize between accountability and rehabilitation in a time of mass incarceration
Methods of Research
This paper uses a comparative and analytical approach. The information is taken from different kinds of sources, like academic writings, statutory laws, and also important case law decisions.
The focus is mostly on new developments in criminal justice policy, how courts are interpreting retributive and restorative measures, and also the laws that regulate punishment in general
The Legal Framework
The foundation of punishment in law is built on statutes and also constitutional duties. In many countries, the sentencing policies try to mix retributive ideas with rehabilitative ones, though not always in the same balance. For example, in the United States, the Sentencing Guidelines bring together both approaches. The goal is to give punishing that has structure but still considers rehabilitation, even if critics say the balance is not continuously flawless.
Judicial Clarification
The method judges construe the law plays a huge role in how sentence theories are really implemented. For instance, in the renowned case Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551, 2005), the U.S. Supreme Court showed its changing position on juvenile sentencing, moving more in the direction of rehabilitation instead of pure punishment.
On the other hand, in United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220, 2005), the Court dealt with the problem of mandatory sentencing rules, which sometimes clash with judges’ freedom to make fair decisions based on each case
Critical Analysis
Even though both retribution and rehabilitation have strong theory behind them, they still face many practical problems. Retribution, for instance, can end up giving out punishments that are too harsh and don’t really look at a person’s unique situation. Rehabilitation, while good in idea, often doesn’t work well because programs are underfunded or not well supported. Another issue is how the public usually sees justice many people think punishment should be tough, so softer or reform-based approaches get less support, which makes broad reforms harder to put in place
Recent Developments
In the last few years, new laws and reforms have started to show that governments are realizing the old punitive system alone is not really working. For instance, the First Step Act in the U.S. tries to lower the use of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent crimes and also to give prisoners more access to rehabilitation programs. The general talk around these reforms in the media and public debates shows that there is more awareness now about how rehabilitation can help cut down repeat offending, even though some still argue it’s not enough.
Suggestions / Way Forward
There is twosome of matters that might help punishment theories work enhanced in actuality:
Judicial training – Judges can advantage from additional exercise around the worth of rehabilitation and restorative justice. This can make them more prepared to contemplate lighter or substitute rulings when it is rational, instead of just going for the strictest choice.
Consolidation Rehabilitation Programs – Correctional amenities must get extra money and funds for education and work-training programs, so that criminals have real skills when they enter the society again. Many programs exist nonetheless they are frequently too trivial or underfunded.
Conclusion
The debate between retribution and rehabilitation is still going on and shows just how complicated it is to run justice in today’s world. Retribution, on one hand, tries to make people accountable for their wrongs, but it sometimes forgets the personal side of offenders. Rehabilitation, conversely, are more progressive since as it seeks to cut down on recurrence crimes and aid people fit back into society. Neither of the two alone gives a full answer. As criminal justice systems keep changing, finding a middle ground between punishment and reform will probably remain one of the biggest challenges, but also one of the most important goals for making the system fair and also more effective.
References / Bibliography
- Kant, Immanuel. *The Metaphysics of Morals*. Edited by Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 1996
- Tonry, Michael. *Sentencing Matters*. Oxford University Press, 1996.
- Morris, Norval. *The Future of Imprisonment*. University of Chicago Press, 1974.
- Gendreau, Paul Goggin, Claire. “The Effects of Community Service Sentences on Recidivism.” *Criminal Justice and Behavior* 23 (1996): 248.
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
- First Step Act of 2018, Pub.L. 115–391
