Index Punishment versus Rehabilitation in Achieving a Harmless Solution Useful Purposes of the Concept of Rehabilitation Conclusion Works Cited The question of the effectiveness of rehabilitation versus harsh punishment has been widely debated. While dealing with crime. There are many debates that follow the topic of what is more suitable for punishment or rehabilitation of prisoners because both concepts are separate from each other. Crime is obviously the most damaging factor within society that affects people. The purpose of criminal justice is to reduce crime in society. Stopping crime may be possible through liberation, but the real problem is how to change the corrupt mentality of a person who has engaged in illegal behavior. It is generally recognized that harsh punishment is an inhumane way of dealing with criminals as they may not get another chance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Punishment VS Rehabilitation in Achieving a Harmless Solution This essay aims to reveal the causes of how the rehabilitation process is more effective than harsh punishment in achieving a harmless condition. There are good reasons to believe that rehabilitation is the most valuable justification for punishment, since it alone promotes the humanizing belief that offenders can be saved and not simply punished. Taxman and Rudes (2011:236) state that “offenders are more likely to modify their behavior in response to correctional agency actions than simply through the stated goals of sentencing.” Only the rehabilitative ideal conveys the message that the state has an obligation to help those who do not meet the standards of behavior established by it. These people are often those with the greatest social disadvantages that forced them into a life of crime in the first place. The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society and the victim. Indeed, it is because he places such great value on their rights that he tries so hard to change the offender and prevent his recidivism. By seeking to reduce recidivism and crime, we seek to constructively promote society's right to safety and protect individuals from victimization by crime. Furthermore, rehabilitation has another important value: it recognizes the reality of social inequality. To say that some criminals need help to be rehabilitated is to accept the idea that circumstances can constrain and lead to crime. Guidance on judges' sentencing decisions, with rehabilitation as their goal, is said to provide the most flexible and sensible direction. Additionally, rehabilitation as a guide for convicted felons can give offenders who have learned from their mistakes the chance to receive a lighter sentence. Killiars and Villetaz (2008: 29) state that "based on a systematic review of approximately 23 studies (out of 300 originally identified), it is concluded that the majority of studies show lower rates of recidivism following a non-custodial sanction than to a prison sentence". '. Rehabilitation is not only important when the court decides on the sentence, but it is also important when it comes to actually carrying out the sentence. The role of the criminal justice system does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence, but it is also the duty of the State and society to help it change. Offenders must be provided significant skills training with behavioral treatment programs. Rehabilitation aimed to mentally prepare offenders foradapt to society with rather harsh punishments, intended to teach them a lesson. It is believed that rehabilitation will show them the mistakes they have made and help them become a useful part of society. There are some people who disagree with the above statements and argue that rehabilitation is not as effective as harsh punishment. Tullock (1974: 103) argues that “most economists who think seriously about crime problems immediately conclude that punishment actually deters crime” (Tullock, 1974). Tullock argues that the reasoning why most economists believe this is: "if you increase the cost of something, less of it will be consumed." Therefore, if you increase the cost of committing a crime, there will be less crime.' Furthermore, it is argued that crime is not a pathology, it is not the product of circumstances, it is certainly not the product of coincidence. It is the result of choices made by the individual and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate the rules of society. Retributivism argues that more serious crimes should be punished more severely, due to the more serious violation of our rules. They believed that punishment had more power to change a person than rehabilitation. Rehabilitation will show them the mistakes they made and how to improve them, but punishment will make them understand that their mistakes can cause them, even more, not to try to change or break the laws. Furthermore, rehabilitation does not work in cases of serious crimes. Injustice is committed if one attempts to correct the offender. The suffering of the victim's family will increase and public trust in the criminal justice system will decrease. Retributive theories look backward and justify punishment in terms of "inherent justice as a response to crime." Offenders are held accountable for their crime by imposing sanctions on them that are more or less equivalent in terms of harm to those inflicted on their victims. The state and its designated agents are ethically obligated to punish wrongdoers simply because of the nature of the wrongful act and not for other reasons such as the beneficial consequences of doing so (Drivers, 2006). It is also argued that harsh treatments such as imprisonment are mandatory on some occasions due to the wrongs committed and adequately expresses social disapproval. "while most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long-term imprisonment on the homicide rate, it is in the mid-70s." Useful purposes of the concept of rehabilitation Although this view may seem convincing, in reality, the concept Rehabilitation is based on the assumption that criminal behavior is caused by certain factors. There is no denying that they make choices to break the law. It is said that most offenders are not criminals by birth or choice, if their involvement in crime is caused by various factors, recidivism can be reduced by corrective measures. The purpose of rehabilitation is to correct the offender so that he is enabled to return to society and function as a law-abiding member. Rehabilitation was seen as a humane alternative to punishment and deterrence. Although rehabilitation has been widely criticized before, it has gained greater acceptance and there is evidence that a carefully implemented rehabilitation program could reduce recidivism. Societies become more civilized; they should overcome the desire for revenge because the philosophy of punishment is obsolete. It is also argued that punishing criminals just because they acted inappropriately does not bring to the fore problems they may have, 66(2), 22-29.