"The Shift Toward Reform"
OPINION PIECE by: ANIA BROZ ✦ POLAND
Introduction
Sentencing in criminal justice entails particular measures which include, punishment and rehabilitation among others. It is important to emphasize that throughout the historical evolution of the criminal justice system and its studies, punishment predominated as one of the main issues, thus adopting an orthodox perspective on justice. However, this approach simply provides short-term relief without bridging the gaps of social inadequacies and high rates of reoffending. This paper proposes that society’s reoffending rates should be the goal of the sentencing process together with the society’s reintegration, reuse of clients and other results-oriented practices.
II. The Failures of Punishment-Centric Sentencing
In a retribution model of sentencing, penalties are imposed in proportion to the severity of the initial offense, reflecting the idea that crimes are breaches of the law and those who commit them deserve punishment. Proponents argue that such punishment deters future crimes, yet many studies challenge these claims. For instance, Shapiro asserts that mandatory minimums and lengthy sentences have deterrent value, but research often disputes this. The National Institute of Justice (2016), for example, indicates that while increased punishment might reduce the base rate of reoffending, it does not necessarily decrease an individual’s likelihood of reoffending in the long term. Furthermore, these policies have been criticized for disproportionately targeting behaviors linked to substance abuse, mental illness, and poverty. Recognizing these issues, recent legal reforms like the Fair Sentencing Act (2010)¹ and the First Step Act (2018)² have sought to address some of the inequities of mandatory minimums. The Fair Sentencing Act reduced sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine offenses, while the First Step Act expanded early release opportunities and retroactively applied provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act, reflecting a shift toward more equitable and evidence-based sentencing practices
Furthermore, punishment structures do not resolve crimes; they exacerbate them. What began as a means to improve society’s members often leads to more members of that society reoffending. Overpopulated prisons or lack of rehabilitation and rehabilitation or even the trauma of reinsertion into society seem to create a lot of obstacles. The outcome is a pattern of reoffending that’s wholly inefficient and detrimental to public safety and consumes a lot of time, effort, respective finances, and penal resources.
III. The Case for Reducing Recidivism as a Primary Goal
The reduction of recidivism and the rehabilitation and reintegration of a convicted person back into society provide an effective method of sentencing rooted in a humane perspective that does not rely solely on punishment. This approach aligns with restorative justice principles, which emphasize addressing the harm caused by crime, holding offenders accountable, and facilitating their reintegration into the community.
While restorative justice has shown promising outcomes in many cases—such as fostering reconciliation between offenders and victims and reducing reoffending—it is not universally applied across jurisdictions. In some areas, the justice system remains primarily retributive, focusing on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Even in regions that have embraced restorative justice practices, challenges to broader implementation persist. These include a lack of funding and resources, limited public awareness, and resistance from traditional criminal justice institutions. Additionally, systemic biases and unequal access to restorative programs can undermine their effectiveness and fairness.
Nevertheless, jurisdictions that have successfully implemented restorative justice demonstrate its potential to transform sentencing practices, promote social healing, and support a more equitable and compassionate approach to justice.
IV. Economic Benefits
One of the most persuasive reasons for tackling recidivism is the consideration of economics. Incarceration is a very expensive task. Annually, the United States alone is estimated to spend around $80 billion in prison budgets³. In comparison to such high costs, educational, vocational, and therapeutic rehabilitation programs are cost-effective and highly beneficial. According to a report released by the Rand Corporation, formerly incarcerated individuals who received education while being incarcerated are 43% less likely to recidivate and cause millions in correctional expenses while reducing the strain of crime on society⁴.
V. Public Safety
Sentences that are focused on rehabilitation also makes the public more secure as it solves the problems that lead to criminality in the first place. Drug programs aiming at getting people off drugs have been successful in curbing drug-related crimes. Another strategy that has proven to be effective is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which enables offenders to change their ways of thinking into more crime-oriented thoughts. These programs do not only reduce the chances of someone reoffending; they empower the offenders and assist them in turning their lives around.
VI. Moral and Ethical Considerations
Drawing from equitably the ethical perspective as regards the strategies for reducing recidivism, criminogenic relapses in offending acts, at least, demonstrates respect for the human beings in the society and their willingness to change and to be reformed. Those advocating for strict punishment as corrective measures disregards the situational, economical and institutional factors such as social intolerance, poverty and lack of education which are in one way or another associated with the crimes. This demonstrates how the focus of the justice system has shifted. Now, they understand such dynamics of crime and have become more concerned with the rehabilitation of offenders upon their imprisonment.
VII. Implementation Strategies
A system inclined towards reducing recidivism calls for restructuring the legislation, involving the community and maintaining the use of the strategies that are backed by evidence collected from real situations. Policy frameworks regarding sentencing should stress non-custodial measures including probation, community service and restorative justice programs.For low-level, non-violent offenders, diversion programs that tackle issues such as drug abuse and mental health problems can be useful.
Correctional institutions must place emphasis on education, vocational training, and therapeutic services. Collaborative initiatives with community-based organizations can provide assistance to released individuals to enhance treatment compliance and lessen the prospect of failure to reenter the society.
Implementation of practices based on evidence requires comprehensive collection and analysis of data. The rates of recidivism ought to be regularly assessed to determine the impact of programs and policies and inform about the strategies that need to be adapted. Likewise, risk assessment tools could help ensure that interventions are deployed on the right individuals for better outcomes.
The social connection with offenders is essential for their effective re-entry. Mass communication efforts are increasingly being used to educate the public and positively change stereotypes of ex-offenders. For example, initiatives like Ban the Box, which are being implemented in various jurisdictions across the United States and internationally, aim to limit employer biases by delaying questions about criminal records during the hiring process. These practices are becoming more universal as they are tested and refined through research. Programs like the Harlem Reentry Court in New York or Project Return in Nashville further highlight how localized efforts are helping ex-offenders reintegrate successfully by providing job training, mentorship, and community support, underscoring the critical role of evidence-based approaches in fostering successful re-entry.
VIII. Challenges
One of the most frequently raised critiques of a recidivism-focused approach is that it appears to disregard the concept of justice and retribution for the victims of the crime. While this is a genuine concern, it is important to recognize that addressing recidivism does not undermine accountability. For instance, restorative justice frameworks actively include victims' needs and opinions in the sentencing process, ensuring that their voices are not disregarded. Practices such as victim-offender dialogues—mediated conversations between victims and offenders—facilitate understanding and healing while requiring the offender to take responsibility for their actions.
Another significant hurdle arises at the societal level. There is a substantial gap in education and advocacy when it comes to shifting public opinion from punitive paradigms toward rehabilitation. However, as more evidence-based practices are adopted by jurisdictions and their effectiveness becomes increasingly apparent, public perception is likely to evolve, albeit gradually. Restorative justice initiatives that highlight both victim engagement and offender accountability can play a pivotal role in this transformation, fostering a more balanced and humane approach to justice.
IX. Conclusion
The justice system has always functioned on a paradigm that focuses on punishment. Unfortunately the system is flawed and hasn’t addressed the fundamental causes nor the solution to crime. An effective way to combat recidivisms is to focus on the fact that changes in sentencing and corrections will affect the individuals who are incarcerated from the very outset. This makes this approach cost-effective, morally justifiable, and in the end, the most appropriate when dealing with the issues affecting safety. Ending this discussion, it is time to place emphasis back to the central issue: punishment is not the answer, corrective measures should be administered and personalized to sculpt a better society for all.
FOOTNOTES
1. “Fair Sentencing Act, S. 1789, U.S.C. 111-220", (2010).
2. “First Step Act, S. 3747, U.S.C. 115-319", (2018).
3. Casey Kuhn, PBS, pbs.org (Apr. 2021).
4. Lois M. Davis, Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders, Jeremy N. V. Miles, RAND, rand.org, (Aug. 2013).