The argument between rehabilitation and punishment has been a long standing and indecisive. Public opinion and policies tend to change on a whim, some lasting decades, while others are quick to turn from one approach to the other. This paper will show that rehabilitation is a more effective approach as compared to punishment while examining both methods. In 1974, an article entitled “What works? A question and answer about prison reform appeared in The Public Interest.

This article stated, to paraphrase, that very few rehabilitative programs actually reduced recidivism, which is another word for repeated criminal offenses (Martinson 1974).In essence, this was a final nail in the coffin for rehabilitation, at least for the time being. Looking back, we now see that by the time the article was published, there was already a building backlash against rehabilitation by the public. One can almost speculate that Martinson’s article was bias to public opinion. Martinson himself stated later that “he had ‘protested at the slogan used by the media to sum up what I said—‘nothing works.

’ However, he confessed that the ‘press has no time for scientific quibbling and got to the heart of the matter better than I did’” (Cullen, Smith, Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2009).Since Martinson’s article was written, many studies have been done on his methods and have actually found that in many cases, rehabilitative programs do have an effect on recidivism (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Martinson’s article has, and will continue to have ramifications for examining the best course of action to take when it comes to punishment or rehabilitation. Extensive research of past and present methods shapes the culture of the judicial system and help to determine the future path of offenders. After the 1970’s, a more “get tough” approach was given to prison inmates in response to literature that was critical of rehabilitation and by politicians that believed that parole sentencing was too lenient (Logan & Gaes, 1993).This punishment approach was demonstrated in the early 1990’s when all “frills” such as entertainment privileges, access to exercise equipment, federal education aid were all banned.

To that effect, “there is precious little evidence that more painful prisons have a deterrent effect” (Cullen, Smith, Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2009). In fact, many feel that with an over emphasis on punishment, our prisons have become crowded with inmates that do not really need to be there (i. e. convicted offenders caught with five ounces of marijuana intended for personal use do not deserve jail time with violent offenders).

When evaluating a study done in 1987, the examiners found “no evidence that harsher confinement conditions reduce recidivism”; in fact, the results suggested that exposure to such conditions “tends to increase [the] likelihood of rearrest following release” (Cullen, Smith, Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2009). These two simple passages tell me that the punishment approach does more harm than good in relation to recidivism.While the public supports rehabilitation, the “get tough” approach with law makers, especially when it comes to drug offenses, is enforced simply to make an example. If we look at the so called “War on Drugs,” those who are convicted of trafficking narcotics are treated more harshly than some murderers, and yet there are still thousands of pounds of illegal drugs entering this country every day. Punishing those that traffic these materials is not deterring them from resuming the activity upon their release, only by attempting to rehabilitate them can society have a better chance of stopping recidivism.

In recent years, Martinson’s “nothing works” mentality and findings has been challenged by academics. By evaluating countless studies and literary works in what is referred to as “meta-analysis,” the academic community has concluded that rehabilitation is effective in decreasing repeat offenders. “These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).This is not to say it happens every time, as there are cases that rehabilitation has had no effect on repeated offenders, but there are instances where it has become as high as 25%. (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

If you average 10% of the prison population being rehabilitated and not committing further criminal acts, I would deem that as a success. No method of rehabilitation is proven “fool-proof,” but research is promising and continues to be evaluated as many Americans believe that treatment is a part of the penal system.In fact, in the article “Assessing criminal rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects”, the authors state that If “treating offenders” does not work—if lawbreakers cannot, in fact, be changed into law abiders—then this eminently utilitarian goal of corrections would have no utility and should be abandoned. But if effective rehabilitation interventions do indeed exist and can be delivered in the context of correctional agencies, then the failure to do so would constitute imprudent policy (2000). This quote speaks to me that we have to at least give rehabilitation a chance if a reasonable success rate is found to exist.

As stated above, if 10% of the prison population (as represented by the control group in the experiments) can be rehabilitated, we owe it to our society and to those incarcerated to incorporate that into our judicial system. The Texas prison system has had monumental success with rehabilitation. In 2012, the Texas prison system of 111 prisons had its lowest inmate count in five years with a population of 154,000, a decrease of about 2,500 from the previous year while the state’s population itself has continued to increase.Instead of sending more and more lawbreakers to prison, judges in Texas and other states are increasingly sentencing them to alternative treatment and rehabilitation programs that have proven more effective — and that cost much less. For taxpayers, that could mean safer communities and fewer expensive prisons to operate and for criminals that could mean more effective programs to help them escape drug and other addictions and become law-abiding citizens again” (Ward, 2012). The reforms started with the courtroom and end in the prison system itself.

In Dallas, Houston and Austin, there are courts that sentence offenders to a rehabilitation program as opposed to jail time. Those that have been sentenced to probation or received probation after being released from incarceration are closely monitored and kept in check with assessment criteria for the public’s protection. Community service programs for non-violent offenders are designed to reduce recidivism and probation violations that would normally land an offender in jail. Within the prison itself, a fifth of the population participates in some sort of treatment program.A focus on community based corrections has kept juveniles close to positive social ties in order to instill positive influences in their lives (Ward 2012).

All of these changes are for the overall safety of the general public. When researching these programs, I believe that the results speak for themselves. A reduction of 2,500 inmates and a decline in crime rate is encouraging for rehabilitation lobbyists. In its efforts to reduce overpopulation, new legislation has been proposed to limit the number of convicts sent to prison in exchange for additional funding for local programs (Ward 2012).

After examining both the punishment approach and rehabilitation approach as related to convicted offenders, I would have to argue that the rehabilitation approach is more effective in reducing crime. There is more evidence to show that the recidivism rate decreases with proper rehabilitation. To clarify, being imprisoned is punishment enough, but to have the opportunity to be changed into a person that will not commit further criminal acts is more important. As the reduction in repeat offenders continues, the crime rate would drop considerably.