Treatment Vs Punishment

Treatment Vs Punishment
TREATMENT
Treatment of something involves putting a particular substance onto or into it, in order to clean it, to
protect it, or to give it special properties. The treatment of offenders was one of the first areas in crime
prevention and criminal justice to attract international attention. In fact, the prevention of crime and
treatment of offenders, focused primarily on the response to crime, he treatment of offenders and
prisoners.
The Rules form a set of recommendations representing a balanced approach, taking into account the
views and experiences of Governments, legal scholars, experts in the field and practitioners. They
emphasize that imprisonment should be considered as a last resort and encourage the promotion of
non-custodial measures with due regard to an equilibrium between the rights of individual offenders,
the rights of the victims and the concern of society. The Rules set forth a wide range of non-custodial
measures at various stages of criminal procedures. They also contain rules on implementation of non-
custodial measures, staff recruitment and training, involvement of the public at large and of volunteers,
research, planning. policy formulation and evaluation, thus providing a comprehensive set of rules to
enhance alternative measures to imprisonment
Punishment
the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person fora misdeed (i.e., the transgression of a law or
command). Punishment may take forms ranging from capital punishment, flogging, forced labour, and
mutilation of the body to imprisonment and fines.
The fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault. a penalty inflict ed for an offense, fault, etc.
severed handling or treatment.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
1. DETERRENCE
The deterrence theory of punishment is premised on dissuading the commission of crime by imposition
of punishment. The targeted dissuasion operates at two levels. (McNeil, 2012) Firstly, the punishment is
intended to deter the person who is being punished from indulging in any kind of criminal conduct in
future. Secondly, the punishment imposed on an offending individual is also expected to deter people in
general from engaging in any kind of criminal conduct. This theory is founded on creating the fear of
punishment as the modality to discourage people from engaging in criminal conduct.
2. PREVENTIVE
Preventive Theory of Punishment .The main emphasis of the preventive theory of punishment is to
ensure that the offending individual is prevented from committing any crime in future. The Same is
achieved by imposing such punishment which incapacitates the offending individual from perpetrating
any crime in future.
3. RETRIBUTIVE
The retributive theory of punishment is centered on the idea of revenge. So the person who commits a
crime is given such punishment which serves as a revenge for the victim or the near and dear ones of
the victim. The purpose of this theory of punishment is to make the criminal suffer for his wrongdoing.
Here the purpose of the punishment is deeply personalized and revolves around the psychological outlet
of the victim or his family.
4. RESTORATIVE
Like the retributive theory of punishment, the restorative theory of punishment is also a victim-centric
approach but rather than focusing on retribution, it focuses on providing a restorative outlet for the
victim. (McNeil, 2012) It seeks to heal the conflict between the offender and the victim. This theory
incorporates techniques of punishment which are primarily socially integrative in nature
S. REFORMATIVE AND REHABILITATIVE
Reformation and rehabilitative theory of punishment, the focus is on the criminal and not on the crime.
This theory treats the offending individual as a person who requires help in order to change his
inclination towards criminal conduct. Thus, this theory considers the propensity to commit crimes as an
affliction which can be treated. (Crime and Theories of Punishment, n.d.) Thus, the focus is on imposing
such punishment which would bring about attitudinal and behavioral changes in the concerned
individual.
TREATMENT VS. PUNISHMENT
Punishment has evident values, but they are limited and are offset by unanticipated consequences.
Punitive methods of dealing with criminals, then, seem relatively inefficient.
In rebuttal, it is indicated that. to justify punishment it is not necessary to prove that it always prevents
crime by its deterrent quality. It is enough to indicate that there would be more crime if all punishment
were abolished.
Initially, it can be stated that the divergence reflects a difference in concern. The treatment-oriented
typically emphasized the plight of the individual criminal and are concerned with his rehabilitation, while
those who accept, and advocate, punishment are primarily concerned with the need for social order
Hence, the writings of the former generally stress the need for understanding the nature of the criminal
as a person with an aim toward his ultimate rehabilitation,
while those of the latter emphasize the deterrent value of punishment which serves to keep all of us,
both criminal and non-criminal alike, mindful of our social responsibilities. It should be added that the
argument of the latter typically centers on the necessity of the threat of punishment rather than the
punishment itself The point being that for the threat to be real for potential criminals (i. e. the
population as a whole) actual punishment of flagrant violators must be duly and consistently
administered.
The deterministic stance of the treatment-oriented stresses the fact that the behavior of the criminal (as
that of all human beings) is determined by the interplay of heredity and environment. Since one clearly
has no control over the former and, particularly in the early most formative years, equally little over the
latter, it is hardly reasonable in this view to hold an individual responsible for what he becomes and
does. If the structure of society molds an individual in terms of its social norms and values, then that
society is responsible for the behavior of its individual members.
But those who favor punishment are not fully persuaded. Since theological doctrines which assume a
degree of human free will are singularly inappropriate in a scientific age, the punishment-oriented
typically accept the deterministic posture and simply point out that the threat of punishment is one
element in the environmental milieu which, among others, serves to determine one's behavior.
The treatment-punishment. For while it will continue to be agreed that some criminals are more
deserving and saveable than others never the less, a reasonably objective system of laws and penalties
for violation must prevail for a sense of social justice to be preserved.

Treatment Vs Punishment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Vs Punishment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Vs Punishment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Treatment Vs Punishment

S. REFORMATIVE AND REHABILITATIVE

TREATMENT VS. PUNISHMENT

You might also like