ARGUMENTS ON THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES
A REHABILITATION AS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR IN DETERRENCE
In the current debate over punishment and rehabilitation there are very few voices that are raised against punishment altogether. In the following selection of writers who support the rehabilitation of criminals and the reduction of the number who are merely punished without any attempt at reforming them, there is also an emphasis on the necessity of keeping habitual violent criminals away from the rest of society. Jenish and Chisholm argue that the notion of parole as a rehabilitative tool is fine, but that the process is applied without making important distinctions between habitual violent criminals and those who possess the capability to benefit from rehabilitation. Wilson also makes the point that long prison terms are desirable and necessary for violent criminals, but he argues that the deterrent effect of punishment is already effective for most of the population, that the most serious offenders are already imprisoned, and that worsening punishment for some (e.g., the "three strikes" rule) is not justified since they would benefit from other forms of social action. Dumaine holds that forms of intermediate sanctions, rather than prison time, will serve society's ends of punishing criminals and reducing crime. Robinson argues that the American system of criminal justice has failed to maintain its moral authority, largely because of its own mistaken rules and procedures. Among these, Robinson lists the idea of punishing criminals on the basis of their perceived potential for more crimes rather than on the seriousness of the particular crime for which they are being punished. None of these writers even hints that there is any reason to avoid punishing convicted criminals, but all of them believe that, in many cases, punishment should be accompanied by rehabilitative treatment. They all believe that the point of pu...