This can include various types of assistance provided in prison or in the course of a probation order, which are intended to help the offender to improve his social skills, his employment prospects, or his capacity after welfare benefits.
Rehabilitation is affected by:
- Individual sentence
- Community penalty, i.e. a Community Service Order, Probation Order or Combination Order.
- PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC
Protection of the public is one of the major justifications claimed for punishment.
For example, imprisonment leads to the incapacitation of offenders so that they are prevented (at least temporarily) from offending against the public at large.
Protecting the public is so important that Capital punishment will be given in some cases.
This aim is affected by:
- Death penalty for murder
- Long prison sentence
- Electronic tagging
- REPARATION
Reparation is a procedure to help victims come to terms. In fact, it is a good way to compensate both financial and physical damages, however physical damages sometimes cannot be compensated for instance, when someone dies as a result of the injuries made by criminals.
Prison, location where convicted criminals and people awaiting trial are confined, is a combination of deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation. This means that a prisoner is being detained for a period of time while he is suffering from being limited and banned from having some sort of things, including freedom.
Whilst imprisonment, a prisoner might be given some education programs, which could help him or her to think more about his or her wrong action and understand the main idea of being confined.
In some cases, a crime has happened as a result of an accidental reason and it is not that much dangerous therefore, the sentence could be suspended or they could be sentenced with probation. This seems to be reasonable when someone make a minor mistake without any previous plan, should not go to prison; because he is not going to commit it again, however if he make another mistake then he will face a heavier sentence.
Community service is another useful retribution, which could help offenders experience the feeling of being part of the society and work for it, as a kind of rehabilitation, whilst they are reimburse the cost of their crime to the society and the government. In this case, people who commit certain crimes related to the society, damaging public properties are mainly included.
On the other hand, some people do not damage directly anything, but the result of their action will affect the regularity of the society and will cause some expenses to it. For instant, a driver who passes the red light could cause an accident which means more work for police and cleaners. In this situation, that driver will be fined.
It seems to be difficult to say if they are successful in reducing the number of crimes. Each one has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Imprisonment, the most serious punishment in the UK, makes people fear of committing crimes, but since the first time that someone goes to prison the fear of going to prison become less and less and does not deter further offending.
According to a Home Office study, 58% of all sentenced prisoners discharged in 1995 were reconvicted of a serious offence within two years of being released.
At least two points are assumed to be essential for deterrence to be effective:
- Supporter of deterrence believe that punishment must be sufficiently severe for it to have a deterrent effect. This supposition can be tested by examining an instance where the level of the punishment was alerted. A recent Home Office report concludes that there is no basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences generally is capable of enhancing deterrent effects (Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity: An analysis of Recent Research, 1999).
- Supporter of deterrence assume that potential offenders weigh up the rewards and risks associated with crime. However, the extent to which people believe they might be caught is probably more important than the actual risk of detection, or the level of punishment.
Furthermore, some offenders will be more educated in prison as they meet professional criminals and this is one of the most important disadvantages of being in prison.
Community service order either has its own problem. Offenders may experience social problems after completing their sentence.
Two researchers, Bottoms & McClintock, attributed a social problem score to ex-Borstal trainees in 1973. Only 18% of those with the lowest scores were reconvicted , whereas 82% of those with the highest scores were reconvicted. In practice, those who had made the poorest social adjustment after their release were most likely become recidivists.
Death penalty or Capital punishment is the most important punishment that always has been discussed.
Sometimes, the death penalty is simply the most appropriate punishment for the vile crime committed. In such cases, jurors are given the choice between a death sentence and a variety of life sentences, depending upon the jurisdiction. It is never easy for juries to give a death sentence. Neither hatred nor revenge is part of their deliberations. The search for justice determines the punishment.
The murder of the innocent is undeserved. The punishment of murderers has been earned by the pain and suffering they have imposed on their victims. Execution cannot truly represent justice, because there is no recompense to balance the weight of murder. For some crimes, it represents the only just punishment available on earth.
Opponents are relentlessly attacking the penalty process itself. They insist that it is so fraught with error and caprice that it should be abandoned. At the very least, they say, America should impose a national moratorium so the system can be reviewed.
Two other factors weigh into the innocence consideration. First, the death penalty remains the most secure form of incapacitation, meaning that executed murderers do not harm and murder again. Living murderers do, quite often. This is unchallenged. Second, although the deterrent effect of capital punishment has been unjustifiably maligned, the evidence is overwhelming that the potential for negative consequences deters or alters behavior. History and the social sciences fully support that finding.
Three major studies were released in 2001, all finding for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. One, out of Emory University, finds that "each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders--with a margin of error of plus or minus 10."
Death penalty opponents want us to believe that the most severe criminal sanction--execution--deters no one. However, if reason is your guide and you remain unsure of deterrence, you are left with the following consideration. If the death penalty does deter, halting executions will cause more innocents to be slaughtered by giving murderers an additional opportunity to harm and murder again.
In my opinion, the sentencing procedure and the punishments are not really affective, as we cannot see too much different in the crime rate after hundreds of years. If the legal system were completely perfect, we would not see any more crime in the society now. In fact, the sentencing system and the judgment system should be reformed and new way of justice should be developed, because a lot of innocent are being held incorrectly, because they cannot prove their innocence.
