Difference Between Deterrence And Rehabilitation

The criminal law is a dominant body of legal principles that have been implemented into society by parliament and the judiciary, which administer these principles through executive agencies such as the police, prisons and the courts. The criminal law plays a vital role in regulating society, as it seeks to reduce recidivism and prevent actions that both directly and indirectly cause severe destruction to individuals where such actions are unwarranted and lack reason (Johnstone and Ward 2008). The crux of criminal law is demonstrated through two primary purposes; deterrence and rehabilitation, both of which align with the overarching intention of what Australia’s criminal law seeks to accomplish. This essay will analyse how deterrence and rehabilitation
Deterrence is categorised into two areas, specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence pertains to the outcome of legal retribution on punished offenders, while general deterrence relates to the outcome of legal punishment on potential offenders (Stafford and War 1993; Paternoster 2010). The criminal law has numerous goals when enforcing punishment on offenders, and has recently adopted sentencing policies that have been ratified with the intention of improving specific and general criminal deterrence (Nagin, Solow and Lum 2015). Lee, (2017) asserts the belief that the deterrence is closely related to the rational choice theory assuming that potential offenders are rational humans with the ability to deduce the consequences for their unlawful actions. Thus, those who want to avoid consequences are unlikely to violate the criminal code, this is how punishment deters crime (Lee
The results indicated a strain between the two regulative structures and a shortage of appreciation that correctional facilities have a firm role alongside restorative practices. Further studies were conducted that found a disconnect between theory and practice in that restorative justice programs and policies both intend to minimise recidivism rates (Ward and Langlands 2009). However, a substantial amount of scholarly research fails to acknowledge the need for evidence- based principles to ensure successful rehabilitative programs. Instead their views have been formulated on theory and the experiences of physicians working at the forefront with victims and offenders (Ward and Langlands