Religion, the Community, and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders

Ministering to Sex Offenders

---

Likewise, maintaining community and family connections can help offenders understand the harm they've done and prepare them for reintegration into society. Isolation may be necessary in some rare cases; but while cutting off family contact can make incarceration easier for those in charge, it can make reintegration harder for those in custody. The principle of participation is especially important for victims of crime. Sometimes victims are "used" by the criminal justice system or political interests.

As the prosecution builds a case, the victim's hurt and loss can be seen as a tool to obtain convictions and tough sentences. But the victim's need to be heard and to be healed are not really addressed. The social dimension of our teaching leads us to the common good and its relationship to punishment. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , punishment by civil authorities for criminal activity should serve three principal purposes: This often neglected dimension of punishment allows victims to move from a place of pain and anger to one of healing and resolution.

In our tradition, restoring the balance of rights through restitution is an important element of justice. The Option for the Poor and Vulnerable: This principle of Catholic social teaching recognizes that every public policy must be assessed by how it will affect the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. Sometimes people who lack adequate resources from early in life i. Unaddressed needs—including proper nutrition, shelter, health care, and protection from abuse and neglect—can be steppingstones on a path towards crime.

Our role as Church is to continually work to address these needs through pastoral care, charity, and advocacy. These two related principles recognize that human dignity and human rights are fostered in community. Subsidiarity calls for problem-solving initially at the community level: It is only when problems become too large or the common good is clearly threatened that larger institutions are required to help. This principle encourages communities to be more involved. Criminal activity is largely a local issue and, to the extent possible, should have local solutions.

Neighborhood-watch groups, community-oriented policing, school liaison officers, neighborhood treatment centers, and local support for ex-offenders all can be part of confronting crime and fear of crime in local communities. Solidarity recognizes that "we are all really responsible for all. Christians are asked to see Jesus in the face of everyone, including both victims and offenders.

Through the lens of solidarity, those who commit crimes and are hurt by crime are not issues or problems; they are sisters and brothers, members of one human family. Solidarity calls us to insist on responsibility and seek alternatives that do not simply punish, but rehabilitate, heal, and restore. Policy Foundations and Directions In light of this moral framework, we seek approaches that understand crime as a threat to community, not just a violation of law; that demand new efforts to rebuild lives, not just build more prisons; and that demonstrate a commitment to re-weave a broader social fabric of respect for life, civility, responsibility, and reconciliation.

Protecting society from those who threaten life, inflict harm, take property, and destroy the bonds of community. The protection of society and its members from violence and crime is an essential moral value. Crime, especially violent crime, not only endangers individuals, but robs communities of a sense of well-being and security, and of the ability to protect their members.

All people should be able to live in safety. Families must be able to raise their children without fear.

Removing dangerous people from society is essential to ensure public safety. And the threat of incarceration does, in fact, deter some crime e. However, punishment for its own sake is not a Christian response to crime. Punishment must have a purpose.

It must be coupled with treatment and, when possible, restitution. Rejecting simplistic solutions such as "three strikes and you're out" and rigid mandatory sentencing. The causes of crime are complex and efforts to fight crime are complicated. One-size-fits-all solutions are often inadequate. Studies and experience show that the combination of accountability and flexibility works best with those who are trying to change their lives.

To the extent possible, we should support community-based solutions, especially for non-violent offenders, because a greater emphasis is placed on treatment and restoration for the criminal, and restitution and healing for the victim. We must renew our efforts to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Therefore, we do not support mandatory sentencing that replaces judges' assessments with rigid formulations.

We bishops cannot support policies that treat young offenders as though they are adults. The actions of the most violent youth leave us shocked and frightened and therefore they should be removed from society until they are no longer dangerous. But society must never respond to children who have committed crimes as though they are somehow equal to adults—fully formed in conscience and fully aware of their actions. Placing children in adult jails is a sign of failure, not a solution. In many instances, such terrible behavior points to our own negligence in raising children with a respect for life, providing a nurturing and loving environment, or addressing serious mental or emotional illnesses.

Promoting serious efforts toward crime prevention and poverty reduction. Socio-economic factors such as extreme poverty, discrimination, and racism are serious contributors to crime. Sadly, racism often shapes American attitudes and policies toward crime and criminal justice. We see it in who is jobless and who is poor, who is a victim of crime and who is in prison, who lacks adequate counsel and who is on death row. We cannot ignore the fact that one-fifth of our preschoolers are growing up in poverty and far too many go to bed hungry.

Any comprehensive approach to criminal justice must address these factors, but it should also consider the positive impact of strong, intact families. Parents have a critical and irreplaceable role as primary guardians and guides of their children. One only has to observe how gangs often provide young people with a sense of belonging and hope when grinding poverty and family disintegration have been their only experience. And while it is true that many poor children who are products of dysfunctional families never commit crimes, poverty and family disintegration are significant risk factors for criminal activity.

Finally, quality education must be available for all children to prepare them for gainful employment, further education, and responsible citizenship. The failure of our education system in many communities contributes to crime. Fighting poverty, educating children, and supporting families are essential anti-crime strategies. Challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.

All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse. And, in particular, the media must be challenged to stop glorifying violence and exploiting sexuality. We encourage the media to present a more balanced picture, which does not minimize the human dignity of the victim or that of the offender.

We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for how it affects society; moreover, we have alternative means today to protect society from violent people. As we said in our Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty , Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders.

The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life. Victims and their families must have a more central place in a reformed criminal justice system. Besides the physical wounds some victims suffer, all victims experience emotional scars that may never fully heal. And since a majority of offenders are not apprehended for their crimes, these victims do not even have the satisfaction of knowing that the offender has been held accountable. This lack of closure can increase victims' fears and make healing more difficult.

This vital concern for victims can be misused. Some tactics can fuel hatred, not healing: But such abuses should not be allowed to turn us away from a genuine response to victims and to their legitimate and necessary participation in the criminal justice system. Victims of crime have the right to be kept informed throughout the criminal justice process. They should be able to share their pain and the impact of the crime on their lives after conviction has taken place and in appropriate ways during the sentencing process.

If they wish, they should be able to confront the offender and ask for reparation for their losses. In this regard, we offer general support for legislation to respond to the needs and the rights of victims, and we urge every state to strengthen victims' advocacy programs. Encouraging innovative programs of restorative justice that provide the opportunity for mediation between victims and offenders and offer restitution for crimes committed. An increasingly widespread and positive development in many communities is often referred to as restorative justice.

Restorative justice focuses first on the victim and the community harmed by the crime, rather than on the dominant state-against-the-perpetrator model. This shift in focus affirms the hurt and loss of the victim, as well as the harm and fear of the community, and insists that offenders come to grips with the consequences of their actions. These approaches are not "soft on crime" because they specifically call the offender to face victims and the communities. This experience offers victims a much greater sense of peace and accountability.

Offenders who are willing to face the human consequences of their actions are more ready to accept responsibility, make reparations, and rebuild their lives. Restorative justice also reflects our values and tradition. Our faith calls us to hold people accountable, to forgive, and to heal. Focusing primarily on the legal infraction without a recognition of the human damage does not advance our values. One possible component of a restorative justice approach is victim-offender mediation. With the help of a skilled facilitator, these programs offer victims or their families the opportunity to share the harm done to their lives and property, and provide a place for the offender to face the victim, admit responsibility, acknowledge harm, and agree to restitution.

However, we recognize that victim-offender mediation programs should be a voluntary element of the criminal justice system. Victims should never be required to take part in mediation programs. Sometimes their pain and anger are too deep to attempt such a process. When victims cannot confront offenders—for example, because it may be too painful or the offender has not been apprehended—they can choose to be part of an "impact panel.

Insisting that punishment has a constructive and rehabilitative purpose. Our criminal justice system should punish offenders and, when necessary, imprison them to protect society. Their incarceration, however, should be about more than punishment. Since nearly all inmates will return to society, prisons must be places where offenders are challenged, encouraged, and rewarded for efforts to change their behaviors and attitudes, and where they learn the skills needed for employment and life in community.

We call upon government to redirect the vast amount of public resources away from building more and more prisons and toward better and more effective programs aimed at crime prevention, rehabilitation, education efforts, substance abuse treatment, and programs of probation, parole, and reintegration. Renewed emphasis should be placed on parole and probation systems as alternatives to incarceration, especially for non-violent offenders.

Freeing up prison construction money to bolster these systems should be a top priority. Abandoning the parole system, as some states have done, combined with the absence of a clear commitment to rehabilitation programs within prisons, turns prisons into warehouses where inmates grow old, without hope, their lives wasted. In addition, the current trend towards locating prisons in remote areas, far away from communities where most crimes are committed, creates tremendous hardships on families of inmates.

This problem is particularly acute for inmates convicted of federal offenses and for state prisoners serving their sentences out of state. Families and children may have to travel long distances, often at significant expense, to see their loved ones.

Reward Yourself

Distance from home is also a problem for those in the religious community who seek to provide much-needed pastoral care. Being away from support systems is especially hard on juvenile offenders, who need family and community support.

The Church's Mission

Public safety is not served by locating prisons in remote communities—regular inmate contact with family and friends reduces the likelihood that upon release they will return to a life of crime. Not all offenders are open to treatment, but all deserve to be challenged and encouraged to turn their lives around.

Programs in jails and prisons that offer offenders education, life skills, religious expression, and recovery from substance abuse greatly reduce recidivism, benefit society, and help the offenders when they reintegrate into the community. These programs need to be made available at correctional institutions regardless of the level of security and be offered, to the extent possible, in the language of prisoners.

More effective prevention and treatment programs should also be available in our communities. We bishops question whether private, for-profit corporations can effectively run prisons. The profit motive may lead to reduced efforts to change behaviors, treat substance abuse, and offer skills necessary for reintegration into the community. Regardless of who runs prisons, we oppose the increasing use of isolation units, especially in the absence of due process, and the monitoring and professional assessment of the effects of such confinement on the mental health of inmates.

Finally, we must welcome ex-offenders back into society as full participating members, to the extent feasible, and support their right to vote. Encouraging Spiritual Healing and Renewal for those who commit crime. Prison officials should encourage inmates to seek spiritual formation and to participate in worship. Attempts to limit prisoners' expression of their religious beliefs are not only counterproductive to rehabilitation efforts, but also unconstitutional.

As pastors, we will continue to press for expanded access to prisoners through our chaplaincy programs, including by dedicated volunteers. We oppose limitations on the authentic religious expression of prisoners and roadblocks that inhibit prison ministry. The denial of and onerous restrictions on religious presence in prisons are a violation of religious liberty. Every indication is that genuine religious participation and formation is a road to renewal and rehabilitation for those who have committed crimes.

This includes contact with trained parish volunteers who will help nourish the faith life of inmates and ex-offenders. Making a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime. Far too many people are in prison primarily because of addiction. Locking up addicts without proper treatment and then returning them to the streets perpetuates a cycle of behavior that benefits neither the offender nor society. Persons suffering from chemical dependency should have access to the treatment that could free them and their families from the slavery of addiction, and free the rest of us from the crimes they commit to support this addiction.

This effort will require adequate federal, state, and local resources for prevention and treatment for substance abusers. Not providing these resources now will cost far more in the long run. Substance abusers should not have to be behind bars in order to receive treatment for their addictive behavior. We need to address the underlying problems that in turn attract drug users into an illegal economy—lack of employment, poverty, inadequate education, family disintegration, lack of purpose and meaning, poor housing, and powerlessness and greed. The sale and use of drugs--whether to make money or to seek an escape--are unacceptable.

At least one third of inmates are jailed for drug-related crimes. Many of them would likely benefit from alternatives to incarceration. Likewise, crimes are sometimes committed by individuals suffering from serious mental illness. While government has an obligation to protect the community from those who become aggressive or violent because of mental illness, it also has a responsibility to see that the offender receives the proper treatment for his or her illness.

Far too often mental illness goes undiagnosed, and many in our prison system would do better in other settings more equipped to handle their particular needs. As a country, we must welcome newcomers and see them as adding to the richness of our cultural fabric. We acknowledge that the law treats immigrants and citizens differently, but no one should be denied the right to fair judicial proceedings.

We urge the federal government to restore basic due process to immigrants including a repeal of mandatory detention and allow those seeking asylum a fair hearing. Migrants who cannot be deported because their country of origin will not accept them should not be imprisoned indefinitely. Legal immigrants who have served sentences for their crimes should not be re-penalized and deported, often leaving family members behind. Many of these immigrants have become valuable members of their communities. Likewise, we oppose onerous restrictions on religious expression and pastoral care of detained immigrants and asylum seekers under Immigration Naturalization Service INS jurisdiction and urge the INS to guarantee access to qualified ministerial personnel.

Placing crime in a community context and building on promising alternatives that empower neighborhoods and towns to restore a sense of security. Fear of crime and violence tears at this web. Some residents of troubled neighborhoods are faced with another kind of community, that of street gangs.

These residents feel powerless to take on tough kids in gangs and have little hope that the situation will ever improve. But there are communities where committed individuals are willing to take risks and bring people together to confront gangs and violence. Often organized by churches—and funded by our Catholic Campaign for Human Development—these community groups partner with local police to identify drug markets, develop specific strategies to deal with current and potential crime problems, and target at-risk youth for early intervention.

Bringing together many elements of the community, they can devise strategies to clean up streets and take back their neighborhoods. One successful community strategy is Boston's Ten Point Coalition, which is credited with reducing juvenile gun deaths, over a several-year period, from epidemic proportions to near zero. This strategy requires a close relationship among religious leaders and law enforcement and court officials, as well as a pervasive presence of people of faith on the streets offering outreach, opportunities for education, and supervised recreation to at-risk youth.

The strategy also sends a clear signal that criminal activity in the community will not be tolerated. Similar strategies that model the Boston coalition are now emerging in other cities. Another community-based strategy to prevent crime is the "broken-window" model. Proponents contend that tolerance of lesser crimes such as breaking windows of cars and factories undermines public order and leads to more serious crimes. Stopping crime at the broken-windows stage demonstrates that a low-cost, high-visibility effort can be effective in preventing crime. Community policing and neighborhood-watch groups have proven to be effective models of crime control and community building, empowering local leaders to solve their own problems.

These efforts reflect the Catholic social teaching principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and the search for the common good. The Church's Mission The challenge of curbing crime and reshaping the criminal justice system is not just a matter of public policy, but is also a test of Catholic commitment. Our community of faith is called to Teach right from wrong, respect for life and the law, forgiveness and mercy. Our beliefs about the sanctity of human life and dignity must be at the center of our approach to these issues. We respect the humanity and promote the human dignity of both victims and offenders.

We believe society must protect its citizens from violence and crime and hold accountable those who break the law. These same principles lead us to advocate for rehabilitation and treatment for offenders, for, like victims, their lives reflect that same dignity. Both victims and perpetrators of crime are children of God. Even with new visions, ideas, and strategies, we bishops have modest expectations about how well they will work without a moral revolution in our society. Policies and programs, while necessary, cannot substitute for a renewed emphasis on the traditional values of family and community, respect and responsibility, mercy and justice, and teaching right from wrong.

God's wisdom, love, and commandments can show us the way to live together, respect ourselves and others, heal victims and offenders, and renew communities. Our Church teaches these values every day in pulpits and parishes, in schools and adult education programs, and through advocacy and witness in the public square. Catholic institutions that offer programs for youth and young adult ministry—including Catholic schools, Catholic Charities, and St.

Vincent De Paul agencies—are bulwarks against crime, by providing formation for young people, enrichment and training for parents, counseling and alternatives for troubled children and families, and rehabilitative services for former inmates. Stand with victims and their families. Victims of crime and their families often turn to their local parishes for compassion and support. Pastors and parish ministers must be prepared to respond quickly and effectively.

Our pastoral presence to victims must be compassionate and constant, which includes developing victim ministry programs. Such programs will teach ministers to acknowledge the emotional strain felt by victims, to understand that the search for wholeness can take a very long time, and to encourage victims to redirect their anger from vengeance to true justice and real healing. Reach out to offenders and their families, advocate for more treatment, and provide for the pastoral needs of all involved. The families of offenders are also in need of our pastoral presence.

Seeing a loved one fail to live up to family ideals, community values, and the requirements of the law causes intense pain and loss. The Gospel calls us as people of faith to minister to the families of those imprisoned and especially to the children who lose a parent to incarceration. We know that faith has a transforming effect on all our lives. Therefore, rehabilitation and restoration must include the spiritual dimension of healing and hope.

The Church must stand-ready to help offenders discover the good news of the Gospel and how it can transform their lives. There should be no prisons, jails, or detention centers that do not have a regular and ongoing Catholic ministry and presence. We must ensure that the incarcerated have access to these sacraments. We especially need to commit more of our church resources to support and prepare chaplains, volunteers, and others who try to make the system more just and humane.

We are grateful for those who bring the Gospel alive in their ministry to those touched by crime and to those in prison. The Church must also stand ready to help the families of inmates, especially the young children left behind. One way to help reintegrate offenders into the community is developing parish mentoring programs that begin to help offenders prior to their release and assist them in the difficult transition back to the community.

Post your comment

These programs can reduce recidivism and challenge faith communities to live out the Gospel values of forgiveness, reconciliation, and responsibility for all members of the Body of Christ. Mentoring programs provide an environment of support, love, and concrete assistance for ex-offenders while also educating parishioners about Catholic teaching and restorative justice.

Instead, a combination of structural factors at the global, national and sub national levels could be considered significant for the rise of terrorism in Indonesia [ 20 ]. Related to the cause of religious radicalism leading to terrorism in the largest Muslim population, Sukabdi [ 23 ] held interviews with a number of eminent religious scholars and figures in Indonesia to understand psychological transformation explaining how religious people turn to violence.

The study shows that although religion is identified with the purpose of achieving both physical and spiritual well-being, as well as material and mental well-being, its expression in social level might lead to disputes and conflicts among societal members. In a context of society, faith can lead to radicalism when its variety of practices is compared with norms agreed by society [ 23 ].

Further, the study shows that religious people could turn to violence because faith has expressions condensed in four levels which at times might contradict due to the presence of others with dissimilar expressions. The four levels of expressions of faith are Figure 1: Private level, where faith is expressed at individual level; 2.

Communal level, where faith is expressed in family, neighborhood, place of worship, and close friends; 3. State level, where faith is expressed at the domain of the state, such as in constitutions and policies e. The study reveals that religious people could have different opinions and beliefs on the appropriate level to express faith and this could create conflicts among believers. Moreover, a set of traditional societal norms and values could play role as an element of dispute or a component of coherence [ 23 ]. Rehabilitation of religious terrorism offenders in Indonesia is defined as.

Rambo [ 24 ] describes that it is possible for religious individuals to alter beliefs or experience ideology adjustment. The critical steps for this alteration are: The steps were examined to more than participants. Peripheral routes focus on developing quality of education, socioeconomic, and internal locus of control, whereas central routes focus on interpretations of sacred texts [ 25 ]. Other studies about quitting illegal group e.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

It will be a grounded study to define steps in rehabilitating ideology-based terrorism offenders. The major questions to address in this research are: What are the best steps in rehabilitating religious terrorism offenders at prisons? And under what circumstances exclusiveness and inclusiveness function effectively at prisons for religious terrorism offenders? A total of twenty terrorism rehabilitators at prisons in Indonesia between the age of 33 and 65 mean: The participants of Study One 12 females, 8 males were rehabilitators who had been handling terrorism cases in Indonesia for at least a year.

The participants of Study Two all males were Jamaah Islamiyah members and its affiliates e. Al Qaeda, Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid who were initially recruited at schools and camps, and used to pledge allegiance to movement figures such as Abu Bakar Bashir. They were graduated from junior high school 15 , senior high school 2 , and college 1 with no steady employment. The names of former offenders to be involved as participants in Study Two were recommended by rehabilitators in Study One and law enforcement due to their reputation as change agents who succeeded in transforming people to disengage from violence and criminal activities.

These participants practiced religious rituals and held on to their Islamic identity and culture shown in their daily life style e. This research consisted of two studies. Study One involved rehabilitators as participants who were facilitators or mentors of offenders [ 23 ], whereas Study Two involved former offenders as participants. FGD for rehabilitators was conducted at a correction center in Jakarta, whereas the FGD for former terrorism offenders was conducted at a restaurant in the same city.

FGDs for two studies were held informally without recording due to sensitivity of issue of terrorism.

Steps in prison rehabilitation, 2. Systematic common observable positive behavior changes, and 3. Furthermore, in Study Two, a two-hour FGD was also conducted with former offenders as participants to discuss about: Internal psychological transformation during treatment at prisons, 2. Effectiveness of exclusiveness and inclusiveness at prisons. FGDs were performed by a forensic psychologist who also acts as the author of this research.

FGD session with former offenders was conducted in traditional religious custom in order to build trust between researcher and participants. It used both Indonesian and Arabic terms to reach understanding of all parties. Seven steps of ideology conversion brought by Rambo [ 24 ] were also presented to stimulate the discussion. During FGDs, participants in both studies were open in answering questions.

A small debate among rehabilitators in Study One occurred when discussing about ideal versus practical steps in rehabilitating offenders.

The debate was related to situation of prison overcrowding as well as human rights issue. Simple quantitative analysis is also performed to find the percentages of participants raising and agreeing to particular terms. The study reveals several activities in rehabilitating ideologybased terrorism clients. When probed to identify best steps in rehabilitation, rehabilitators suggested sequential activities: The findings in Study One also expose the practicability of best practices during rehabilitation. The concern about some complications and limited resources such as prison volume, time, human capacity and financial issue were raised regarding rehabilitation.

In reality, due to limited resource, all rehabilitators agreed on the minimum steps to be taken in rehabilitation which are as follows: Certain scientists argue that this disproves the notion of humans having a biological feeling of intentional transgressions deserving to be punished. Punishments are applied for various purposes, most generally, to encourage and enforce proper behavior as defined by society or family. Criminals are punished judicially, by fines , corporal punishment or custodial sentences such as prison ; detainees risk further punishments for breaches of internal rules.

Children , pupils and other trainees may be punished by their educators or instructors mainly parents , guardians , or teachers , tutors and coaches — see Child discipline. Slaves , domestic and other servants are subject to punishment by their masters. Employees can still be subject to a contractual form of fine or demotion. Most hierarchical organizations, such as military and police forces, or even churches, still apply quite rigid internal discipline, even with a judicial system of their own court martial , canonical courts.

Punishment may also be applied on moral, especially religious, grounds, as in penance which is voluntary or imposed in a theocracy with a religious police as in a strict Islamic state like Iran or under the Taliban or though not a true theocracy by Inquisition. Belief that an individual's ultimate punishment is being sent by God, the highest authority, to an existence in Hell, a place believed to exist in the after-life, typically corresponds to sins committed during their life.

Sometimes these distinctions are specific, with damned souls suffering for each sin committed see for example Plato's myth of Er or Dante's The Divine Comedy , but sometimes they are general, with condemned sinners relegated to one or more chamber of Hell or to a level of suffering. In many religious cultures, including Christianity and Islam, Hell is traditionally depicted as fiery and painful, inflicting guilt and suffering. Buddhist — and particularly Tibetan Buddhist — descriptions of hell feature an equal number of hot and cold hells.

Among Christian descriptions Dante 's Inferno portrays the innermost 9th circle of Hell as a frozen lake of blood and guilt. A principle often mentioned with respect to the degree of punishment to be meted out is that the punishment should match the crime.

Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed. There are many possible reasons that might be given to justify or explain why someone ought to be punished; here follows a broad outline of typical, possibly conflicting, justifications. One reason given to justify punishment [7] is that it is a measure to prevent people from committing an offence - deterring previous offenders from re-offending, and preventing those who may be contemplating an offence they have not committed from actually committing it. This punishment is intended to be sufficient that people would choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment.

The aim is to deter everyone in the community from committing offences. Some criminologists state that the number of people convicted for crime does not decrease as a result of more severe punishment and conclude that deterrence is ineffective. These criminologists therefore argue that lack of deterring effect of increasing the sentences for already severely punished crimes say nothing about the significance of the existence of punishment as a deterring factor.

Some criminologists argue that increasing the sentences for crimes can cause criminal investigators to give higher priority to said crimes so that a higher percentage of those committing them are convicted for them, causing statistics to give a false appearance of such crimes increasing. These criminologists argue that the use of statistics to gauge the efficiency of crime fighting methods are a danger of creating a reward hack that makes the least efficient criminal justice systems appear to be best at fighting crime, and that the appearance of deterrance being ineffective may be an example of this.

Some punishment includes work to reform and rehabilitate the culprit so that they will not commit the offence again.

Crime and punishment

Imprisonment separates offenders from the community, removing or reducing their ability to carry out certain crimes. The death penalty does this in a permanent and irrevocable way. In some societies, people who stole have been punished by having their hands amputated. Criminal activities typically give a benefit to the offender and a loss to the victim.

Punishment has been justified as a measure of retributive justice , [7] [32] in which the goal is to try to rebalance any unjust advantage gained by ensuring that the offender also suffers a loss. Sometimes viewed as a way of "getting even" with a wrongdoer—the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as a desired goal in itself, even if it has no restorative benefits for the victim.

One reason societies have administered punishments is to diminish the perceived need for retaliatory "street justice", blood feud , and vigilantism. For minor offenses, punishment may take the form of the offender "righting the wrong", or making restitution to the victim. Community service or compensation orders are examples of this sort of penalty. Punishment can be explained by positive prevention theory to use the criminal justice system to teach people what are the social norms for what is correct, and acts as a reinforcement. Punishment can serve as a means for society to publicly express denunciation of an action as being criminal.

Besides educating people regarding what is not acceptable behavior, it serves the dual function of preventing vigilante justice by acknowledging public anger, while concurrently deterring future criminal activity by stigmatizing the offender. This is sometimes called the "Expressive Theory" of denunciation. Some critics of the education and denunciation model cite evolutionary problems with the notion that a feeling for punishment as a social signal system evolved if punishment was not effective. The critics argue that some individuals spending time and energy and taking risks in punishing others, and the possible loss of the punished group members, would have been selected against if punishment served no function other than signals that could evolve to work by less risky means.

A unified theory of punishment brings together multiple penal purposes — such as retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation — in a single, coherent framework. Instead of punishment requiring we choose between them, unified theorists argue that they work together as part of some wider goal such as the protection of rights. Some people think that punishment as a whole is unhelpful and even harmful to the people that it is used against. Detractors argue that punishment is simply wrong, of the same design as " two wrongs make a right ".

Critics argue that punishment is simply revenge. Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law , states in her book that,. We ought not to impose such harm on anyone unless we have a very good reason for doing so. This remark may seem trivially true, but the history of humankind is littered with examples of the deliberate infliction of harm by well-intentioned persons in the vain pursuit of ends which that harm did not further, or in the successful pursuit of questionable ends.

These benefactors of humanity sacrificed their fellows to appease mythical gods and tortured them to save their souls from a mythical hell, broke and bound the feet of children to promote their eventual marriageability, beat slow schoolchildren to promote learning and respect for teachers, subjected the sick to leeches to rid them of excess blood, and put suspects to the rack and the thumbscrew in the service of truth. They schooled themselves to feel no pity—to renounce human compassion in the service of a higher end.

The deliberate doing of harm in the mistaken belief that it promotes some greater good is the essence of tragedy.

• Chat Texting & Game Abbreviations
• The Last Goodbye
• The Broken Seal
• Preparado para viajar (Biblioteca del basket Zona131 nº 11) (Spanish Edition)
• Walking Through the Storm
• Virtue and Vice
• Sustainable Global Outsourcing: Achieving Social and Environmental Responsibility in Global IT and Business Process Outsourcing (Technology, Work and Globalization)