Must provide an original response to a collegues response (300-600 words)
This is for a sociology of punishment course
I am attaching class readings for reference.
You should try to provide an example in your responses (either from personal experience or from the texts) to illustrate the ideas that you are presenting. Be sure to include in-text references (APA or ASA) as needed in my response to my collegue’s post and be sure to support your claims by using the available materials.
Students will be able to choose to respond to a collegue’s post;
The response from a collegue that i have chosen to respond to is the following:
#1 How should rehabilitation programs balance individual-focused positivist principles with Durkheimian ideas of social solidarity? And what impact might this balance have on addressing issues around punishment (appropriateness), re-integration (methods) and re-offending (deterrence)?
While at first positivist and Durkheimian views of punishment are diametrically opposed, it is possible to balance both focusing on the individual offender’s rehabilitation with the overarching concerns of societal sentiment. First it must be recognized that crime is directly related to the economic, social, and mental conditions of the offenders (Cohen, 1981). As such, rehabilitation must focus on the direct links between deficiencies, and criminal behaviour. Such deficiencies include lack of education and training, poverty, and mental health conditions, among others. Focus on rehabilitation then, must address the system issues of the offender on and individual level. You cannot teach someone not to be affected by poverty, however it is possible to provide training, education and work skills support that would allow an offender to seek gainful employment outside of the penal system. The training and support must be applied to the industries that are available to job seekers. An example of this type of rehabilitative support is the second chance hiring initiative created by the Ontario government (News Ontario, 2023). The government has invested millions in to training and support organizations that will provide jobs training, mentorship, and mental health support. This implementation is limited, however, and to see true rehabilitative success, the methods and programming would need to be a matter of penal policy for all offenders, rather than an adjacent program set to help a few thousand people.
This individualized rehabilitation system itself can answer matters of social solidarity. While Durkheimian theory posits that retributive punishment is required to restore the sense of social solidarity, rehabilitation can also lead to a restoration of confidence in the collective consciousness. In rehabilitating an offender, there is a replacement of the deviant behaviours with attitudes that match the acceptable views of society. So, when an offender is properly rehabilitated, they will share the same morals and values as society, now abhorring their previous criminal behaviour. In sum, it adds back to the collective conscience a reformed individual conscience in concert with the needs of society (Aubuchon-Rubin, 2009). This, however, requires the optimism and confidence of society that offenders can be redeemed. Thus, social solidarity can be increased when the collective conscience, believes that the former criminal will now choose the path of society, because it is the correct way (Aubuchon-Rubin 2009). This behooves society to take action to assist former criminals to be reintegrated into society successfully. What is required are incentives to hire former offenders amongst the general workforces. A criminal record is one of the major impediments to gainful employment, and as part of the rehabilitative process, society needs to reverse course and work to employ the people who have done the work to return to society. This would allow for the breach in social solidarity to be closed, with the former offender returning as a strong proponent of societal values in their newfound roles.
This approach would balance retribution with rehabilitation for criminal sentencing and allow for the purpose of incarceration to focus on the restoration of the offender to societal norms. It would focus on reintegration of offenders, not only on the side of the offenders themselves but also a societal response to assist the reintegration of former criminals to the general population, and would, by addressing key indicators for criminal behaviour, prevent recidivism caused by a lack of integration to society, poverty, or skills.
Works Cited
Aubuchon-Rubin, A. T. (2009). Rehabilitating Durkheim: social solidarity and rehabilitation in eastern state penitentiary, 1829-1850. International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing, 5(1), 12-38.
Cohen, S. A. (1981). An introduction to the theory, justifications and modern manifestations of criminal punishment. McGill Law Journal, 27(1), 73-91.
Ontario Creating Safer Communities through Second Chance Hiring. Ontario newsroom. (2023). https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002977/ontario-creating-safer-communities-through-second-chance-hiring
