Abolitionism is a perspective and approach to reducing or suppressing custody. In such regard, penal abolitionism has emerged to counteract the contemporary definitions of crime and the law and defies the perspectives of the meaning and effects of punishment. Canada and other countries, such as the US, have recorded an increasing incarceration rate in the last decades, despite the stability from the 1920s to the 1970s. Moreover, the penal population is probably the largest globally, with more than 2.2 million adults. The rate of incarceration in Canada is approximated at one in every 100 adults. However, the largest populace in prison is derived from the most disadvantaged in the society, specifically men under 40 years, minorities, and the poorly educated (Hannah-Moffat 511). Such considerations have triggered constant criticism on incarcerations and circumstances that led to such consequences. The high rates of imprisonment have undermined the possibility of social benefits, becoming a source of injustice and social harm in Canada. At this point, there is a need to change sentencing, prison, and social policies. This paper explores the successes and/or failures of reforming punishment under the criminal justice system.
It is often assumed that the government is justified in imposing a punishment whenever a person commits a crime. However, some punitive measures have been demonstrated to be unjust and harmful to the offenders. In such consideration, a person needs to understand how the imposition of a particular form of punishment is justified or underpinned under the criminal justice system. Throughout the world, imprisonment has been adopted to punish wrongdoers and remains the most severe form to be imposed. Proponents of imprisonment support that it can be justified by integrating most punishment aims because of its deterrent and incapacitation effects and the ability to change and rehabilitate (Parkes 168). The purposes of punishment make a prison sentence appear as a well-deserved and proportionate response to crimes. Nonetheless, achieving such attributes is a significant challenge in today’s content due to the increasing disagreement on the weight of the differing aims and how prisons should operate. Even though efforts to reform punishment have failed, the international laws strongly endorse the significance of rehabilitation and reintegration to achieve the ideals of imprisonment.
Transforming the Canadian punishment policy amid the rising incarceration rates reflects significant changes, especially in societal thinking. Currently, Canada is experiencing a riotous period marked by political and economic changes, a rapid rise in crime, and varying race relations (Parkes 174). The laws enacted by the Canadian government seem to be sending more people to prison for an extended time. Such consideration demonstrates the shifting focus on competing values in public and professional discourses. The change from rehabilitation, which is the primary function of punishment, to retribution has been suggested. Various efforts to reform punishment in criminal justice seem to have a lower stance or fail because of the complexity of the subject. For example, empirical evidence is not adequate to determine the public policy in criminal justice since most implicit conceptions of fairness, and human welfare are hidden while accounting for costs and benefits (Hannah-Moffat 526). Moreover, a detailed account of the normative principles lacked the significant policy shifts which triggered the rise of incarceration.
Punishment was designed by positivist thinkers and legal analysts with the intention of preventing crime. From the passing judgment, offenders were restrained if their presence was a perceived threat to public safety and needed to be unrestricted when deemed otherwise. However, punishment gained retributive and crime control missions in the 1970s, where incapacitation, deterrence, and offender accountability were the key objectives (Hannah-Moffat 519). The goals of crime control and offender accountability in offender punishment led to a decline in existing principles that limited harsh punishment in crime policy and political arguments. In such regards, the resulting increase in mass incarceration and the speed with which it progressed indicated transformations in the role of punishments. Even though punitive measures need to be imposed because offenders deserve them, they should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Recently, most sentencing laws have been punitive but provide no justification or effectiveness in future crime prevention (Parkes 171). Such a move exposes the adverse effects of the criminal justice system on offenders. For instance, actual social harm is probable due to the excessive use of incarceration and the need to reemphasize the old principles of restrained punishment.
Contemporary reformers have inherited the legacy of abolitionists that vividly explained radical ideas in shaping the past decades on the nature of the crime. Reforms were also employed in the differential use of the law and prisons’ failure to minimize criminal activities. Institutional settings seem to play an integral role in designating crime constituents, law intervention, and penalties inflictions. Under such environments, punishment is perceived as an outcome of how institutions develop a sense of the events and claim responsibility based on knowledge. Abolitionists claim that knowledge is attained within precise contexts and could be repaired by developing restorative collective capabilities. Such ideas have been claimed by reformers, where humanitarian, contingent interventions are required to alleviate prison conditions linked to mass incarceration.
There are vital aspects that form the belief that the conventional legal process is impractical because of its administrative split of the offender from the penalties of acts. The main element is direct participation in listening and speaking to the victim and the offender. Restorative justice has a way of tailoring outcomes to be in line with the situational needs of parties (Hannah-Moffat 521). As a result, an increase in compliance rates leads to more excellent satisfaction in the process, thus advocating for its authenticity. Additionally, restorative justice is intended to eliminate stigmatization and shaming of the offender. Restorative justice stems from diverse political perspectives, with pressure gravitating towards reforms through compassion, understanding, and individual attention among underprivileged wrongdoers (Parkes 176). Such criminal justice system encourages political legitimacy and democracy, developing new legal and social norms that build the community.
On the other hand, conservative theorists argue that restorative justice is unable to meet its sociological and philosophical entitlements and that humans are naturally vengeful and retributivist. Additionally, the transformative processes contend that restorative justice manipulates offenders unfairly to agree to stricter terms than legal rights. Restorative justice is also specific to cultures; thus, it cannot deliver equitable justice because community notions are communal ideas that can be used for destruction. Protagonists of restorative justice claim that it is a substitute for participatory democracy; however, conventional philosophers envision controlled crime and governance. In conclusion, it is crucial to understand that substantial issues raised restorative justice as a substitute for the traditional legal processes. However, some novelties advocate for challenging yet transformative moves and ideas for both groups, transgressive and individual, and conduct that aim at justice and peace.
Works Cited
Hannah-Moffat, K. “Prisons that Empower.” British Journal of Criminology, vol. 40, no. 3, 2000, pp. 510-531.
Parkes, Debra. “Solitary Confinement, Prisoner Litigation, and the Possibility of a Prison Abolitionist Lawyering Ethic.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, vol. 32, no. 2, 2017, pp. 165-185.