Question: ‘Rehabilitation, not deterrence, should be the goal of the justice

system.’ Discuss.

What is the role of the justice system in society? Put simply, the justice
system serves to uphold fairness in society by punishing and correcting wrongdoing.
The motivation behind such punishment or corrective action is to reduce the threat
criminals hold to society, by punishing criminal offenders and discouraging future
offenders, as well as provide closure to victims of crime. However, this assumes that
punishment and deterrence the only means with which to reduce the threat
criminals hold to society, that it is the only means to achieve the goals of the justice
system. The central issue of the question is about the conflicting roles and aims of
the justice system, which role it should emphasise on and value in achieving its goal
and which role is wrongly emphasised on. On one hand, some may believe that
deterrence is a necessary factor of the justice system, to uphold public safety, deter
criminals from reoffending and prevent future cases. However, I believe that
rehabilitation, not deterrence should be the ideal goal of the justice system, as it is
able to prevent criminals from reoffending and uphold public safety more effectively
than deterrence can.

Rehabilitation allows a criminal to take corrective action for their wrongdoing,

and reduces the threat they pose to society more effectively than deterrence does.
The aim of prison and punishment in the justice system is to socially isolate a
criminal and recondition their behaviour to reduce the threat they hold to society and
public safety. However, the notion of deterrence, that the threat of force towards an
offender is able to reduce the threat they pose to society assumes that offenders are
able to make rational choices to control their behaviour by knowledge of the
consequences of their actions. It also assumes that the goal of the justice system is
to be able to incentivise this rational choice. Given this, rehabilitation works better in
influencing offenders to make the rational choice to control and improve their
behaviour through corrective action. This is because rehabilitation can target the
issues which cause convicts to offend, through programmes such as drug abuse
therapy for offenders with drug-abuse related charges, skills training and general
psychology-based correctional programmes which seek to recondition the behaviour
and character of offenders. On the other hand, the threat of force through
regimentation and the limiting of a person’s rights instills a sense of fear at best, and
at worst fails to address the negative cycle where offenders are unable to break
away from the issues which cause them to offend in the first place. For instance,
participation in rehabilitation can serve as a condition for an offender’s application for
parole and a reduced sentence. This is because going through corrective action for
their wrongdoing in rehabilitation is a qualifying factor for parole, and demonstrates
that the offender is in a position to reflect on and improve their behaviour. Of course,
this assumes that the criminal can be considered to be redeemable and rational,
especially in the case of first-time offences or non-violent criminal cases. The
premise is that rehabilitation can achieve the same things that deterrence through
punishment can, by reducing the threat a person holds to society while still ensuring
they are socially isolated, and have restriction to their freedom of movement. Thus,
rehabilitation reduces the threat an offender poses to society more effectively than
deterrence through punishment can.

Rehabilitation ensures criminals can reintegrate back into society and

prevents recidivism where deterrence fails to do so. The problem originates when
offenders are labelled as convicts in society. Such a label can prevent offenders from
being able to reintegrate back as functioning members of society. As a result of this
label and of having committed a crime, they also suffer from having zero outside
connections to help them, and little to no job opportunities. Their families and friends
may likely dissociate from them, they would have likely been fired from any jobs they
had and businesses would be very unlikely to rehire them for job positions.
Therefore, through the corrective action provided under rehabilitation, criminals with
first-time offences or non-violent crimes can undergo skills training or go through
programmes to increase the likelihood that they will be accepted back into society.
Deterrence and punishment simply fails to achieve this. Without rehabilitation, these
convicts would likely remain a danger to society by being unable to reintegrate, and
will likely turn back to crime or face issues such as unemployment or stigmatisation.
For instance, Norway has the lowest recidivism and reoffense rate globally at 20%,
and one of the reasons why this is so is because it shifted its focus in the justice
system from deterrence through punishment to rehabilitation and reintegration into
society, specifically through the normalisation of convicts and their behaviour. The
premise is that criminals must be able to reintegrate back into society through the
justice system, and that the role of the justice system is to also prevent re-offenses.
Thus, rehabilitation should be the goal of the justice system as it prevents recidivism
and allows offenders to reintegrate back into society where deterrence would be
unable to do so.

However, others may feel that deterrence through punishment is necessary

for a significant portion of crimes where rehabilitation cannot justify that a person is
capable of corrective action and redemption. For instance, remorse and
rehabilitation cannot be granted for an irredeemable crime, such as murder. In such
cases rehabilitation and correctional therapy is rendered obsolete, such that the
most important role the justice system can serve is to provide deterrence through
threat of force to the offender, in the form of a punishment that is proportional to the
crime committed. This also ensures that the victim of crime or family of the victim is
also provided closure through the punishment of the criminal, which can only be
achieved through a focus on deterrence through threat of force and punishment, and
not through rehabilitation. This is where rehabilitation fails.
 On the contrary, I believe that even in the case of a heinous and irredeemable
crime, at worst, deterrence and rehabilitation should be applied equally, as
rehabilitation can still be offered, not out of the potential for remorse of the offender,
but out of the rationale that doing so can reduce the threat they pose to society,
while still isolating the criminal from society. Meanwhile for less heinous crimes, the
argument to prioritise rehabilitation over deterrence still stands.

In conclusion, I believe that rehabilitation should be the ideal goal of the

justice system, as it is able to reintegrate offenders back into society, something
which cannot be achieved through deterrence, and uphold public safety as
effectively as deterrence can. If the justice system were to only emphasise on
deterrence, on the fear of consequence through punishment, then criminals would
never be able to escape the negative cycle of re-offenses.