CJUS 320-D04: Corrections
This paper covers punishment philosophy and the influence on corrections. With punishment philosophy and corrections in mind, this paper explores retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restoration. An explanation on have punishment philosophy achieves or does not achieve these goals of corrections is explored. Also, the medical, custodial, and justice models are incorporated with punishment philosophy and corrections. After exploration of these models and their strengths and weaknesses for the goal of corrections, a combination of all models is suggested. Furthermore, the success of this blended model is explained.
Punishment Philosophy is the notion that punishment through retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and/or restoration will serve the best interest of public safety (Seiter, 2014). However, punishment has lost the notion of rehabilitation, restoration and slightly deterrence, while heavily focusing on retribution and incapacitation (Bedau & Kelly, 2010). This movement happened after the judicial model took over the medical model and is emphasized with the custodial model. The problem with punishment philosophy is the focus on society’s safety with disregard for the offender (Seiter, 2014).
During the medical model, which was part of the rehabilitative era from 1960-1980, offenders were considered sick and were treated for their illness (Seiter, 2014). This model emphasized rehabilitation and focused on the offender as the main source of producing public safety. But without sound proof that this method was working, Robert Martinson in the early 1970’s coined the “nothing works” and turned the justice system from the rehabilitative era to the retributive era (Seiter, 2014). This shift was also contributed to the 100-300 percent increase in crime from the 1970’s to...