Rehabilitation Is Not Just; Punishment Is a Must.
Rehabilitation is the act of restoring to good condition or health. In Richard Wasserstrom's essay, "Punishment v. Rehabilitation", he argues that the legal system should be designed only to rehabilitate the offender. He also states that the offender is "sick" and should not be punished for having a mental disease. We should not succumb to this argument because it is a claim without facts. Criminals do not wake up one day and decide to commit crimes. The idea was already lingering in their minds from an earlier stage in life, whether the criminal was consciously aware of it or not. With that statement alone, we cannot rehabilitate someone who is not in good mental health in the first place. Moreover, harsher punishment is the remedy that criminals need, and it is a deterrent example for future criminals. Rehabilitation gives offenders opportunity not to successfully rehabilitate, it is too lenient on violent criminals, and it eliminates the victims" rights.
The argument begins that it is wrong to punish someone for something he or she could not help; no one can help being sick. As the Supreme Court observed; "Even one day in prison would be cruel and unusual punishment for the "crime" of having a common cold" (Wasserstrom 571). Consequently, it will be wrong to punish anyone who commits a crime. What we ought to do is treat the offenders, not punish them. One problem with this claim is that every offender will now maintain his or her innocence by reason of insanity, even if they knowingly did wrong. Offenders could pretend to comply with the rehabilitation treatment for the sole purpose of being released out into society sooner than later. "Most defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are released from mental hospitals years, if not decades, earlier than they would be had they served prison sentences" (Knowles).
