This essay will examine the “less eligibility” argument and how society and the state have such an influence on offender rehabilitation. Additionally, it will analyze and justify the need for rehabilitation and equitable distribution of resources among the poor and delinquents in a community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIt is not surprising to say that offenders are socially stigmatized for life, even if they have genuinely morally re-evaluated themselves- same, their past actions and choices will be frowned upon by the rest of society. It is therefore to be expected that arguments such as “less electability” will flourish, knowing that there already exists negativity and prejudice towards offenders. In Bentham's words, his principle of lesser eligibility states that "except due respect to life, health, and physical ease, the ordinary conditions of a convict devoted to punishment 'shall not be rendered' more eligible than those of the poorest class of citizens in a country.” state of innocence and freedom. Wanting to care for those who live in extremely precarious situations – and who could easily have turned to crime but chose not to – is perfectly understandable. However, if we adopt Bentham's principle, it would mean that prison conditions would be worse than those in the worst slums, and prisoners would be pushed to the limits of starvation, leading to inhumane conditions. So this brings us to the question: why are we trying to rehabilitate offenders? Why not keep everyone who shows signs of breaking the law in prison? Well, to answer these questions, throughout the history of rehabilitation, many have argued that its existence in the penal system is essential, as it has promising potential to reduce recidivism. Additionally, many argue that through rehabilitation we could heal damaged relationships and keep the community safe. According to Rotman's argument, there is a duty of rehabilitation to mitigate the harm caused by the penalties (i.e., imprisonment) imposed on the offender. He goes on to support the idea that we – as a society – have an obligation to provide every offender with the opportunity and resources to reintegrate into society as a useful human being. There is this promise around rehabilitation that it will have a significantly positive impact on society. If we were to take a strength-based and restorative approach, which focuses on the "positive attributions a person can make", then we might have a positive outcome indeed, being able to transform offenders into members of society respectful of the law and who will actively contribute to the general good. It could be said that it is generally accepted that social and personal circumstances are active agents that lead people to violations of the law (rendering them helpless and leaving them with no other choice), the ideology of rehabilitation indicates clearly that to stop crime reintegration, society must show support for reform programs that will result in a more equitable distribution of resources through broad structural transformation of the social order. For offenders to achieve relational reintegration into society, the very society that punished them should offer them the opportunity to prove that they are productive and respectful members of society.laws. We must also keep in mind that many offenders come from disadvantaged neighborhoods associated with imprisonment, high unemployment and low levels of education. And in the words of Bobby Cummines, “a society that doesn't care is a society that doesn't care,” meaning that if the state turns its back on those who need support, the results will be good more tragic than expected. The negativity surrounding rehabilitation is arguably associated with Martinson's article, which based on a number of studies, led him to conclude that "nothing works." According to him, there is "very little reason to hope that we have actually found a sure way to reduce recidivism through rehabilitation...psychotherapy, at best, cannot overcome, or even significantly reduce, the strong tendency of offenders to continue their criminal behavior. . In one of its earliest forms, rehabilitation was delivered according to what is known as the “medical model.” In this form, rehabilitation was seen as a form of treatment to correct certain defects of individuals. The medical model was firmly based on the positivist school of criminology which viewed offenders as passive agents, who lacked choice (regarding their actions) and their offending was therefore not their fault, but was seen as the mere result external factors beyond their control. . As the medical model was applied to offenders, it was assumed that to stop recidivism it would be necessary to physically restrain them or address the disorder that caused them to reoffend. This treatment model has been criticized as fundamentally and morally flawed. According to Balch, we cannot – and should not – take the framework and knowledge about how illness works and apply it to delinquency; illness strikes people for no reason and unexpectedly, whereas crime is something people knowingly get involved in. In practice, this model of rehabilitation was seen as a waste of resources in attempting to find the physical causes of crime, even though there was no real evidence to support the existence of such cause. Furthermore, according to Moran, the treatment offenders were subjected to was often dehumanizing procedures such as psychosurgery, electroshock treatment, brainwashing techniques, etc. We tried and failed, and we asked again and again how are we supposed to make rehab work? What is the right moralistic framework on which to base such a system? Rotman presents two fundamentally different approaches. The first being the authoritarian model, which seeks compliance through intimidation and coercion of offenders, it essentially attempts to mold the offender in an effort to ensure conformity to a predefined pattern of thoughts and behavior. On the other hand, it suggests a more humanistic approach to rehabilitation, the anthropocentric model. This model is customer-oriented and promotes volunteerism, it gives primacy to the human being themselves rather than metaphysical fixations or ideologies. The two models are quite extreme, falling into two different theoretical spheres, and in the real world it would be much more possible to see a healthy mix of the two, a system that is tough on offenders but is also understanding and willing to accept them. give a second chance. If it were decided to turn rehabilitation into a "therapeutic" system, then, unlike punishment, we would examine and focus more on people's needs, and rather than condemn them, we would offer compassionate assistancefor any problems that may arise. This approach could potentially be very beneficial, because as we have highlighted previously, for most people going through the criminal system it would be more of a process of “habilitation” than rehabilitation. Many people have never had the chance to gain social standing and form meaningful relationships. Thus, thanks to a “therapeutic” system, essential help could be provided to them in order to give meaning to their lives. As Faulkner points out, "the general public is inclined to view prisoners as people who have lost their right to citizenship." However, many theorists contradict society's views and defend the idea of ​​rehabilitation as a right. This view is based on the fact that offenders are members of the community and their affiliations with it must be reestablished. A rights-based system essentially highlights the fact that the state and the community have mutual obligations towards each other, so that rehabilitation is fundamentally seen as a right that follows the execution and completion of the sentence legally imposed. To quote Duff, "the burden which the offender is required to bear, by way of punishment, may be regarded as constituting a formal and emphatic apology to his victims and to the community at large"; therefore, given this argument, imprisonment should be enough and society must be prevented from playing a vengeful role, trying to push the condemned away and consider them as high-risk individuals. It could be argued that rehabilitation is on the road to renaissance. Some believe that probation is "fundamentally a form of social service preventing further crimes by rehabilitating the offender." In the 1950s and 1960s, social workers began to be seen as professionals working in the scientific field. We saw a shift in their work, with the emphasis moving away from utilitarian concerns and toward asserting that individual needs and relationships were their primary focus. Additionally, some more current changes are often made through "programs" aimed at empowering and providing offenders with the resources and social skills needed to live their lives within the law. We have gone far enough to recognize that offenders not only need help with self-control, communication and critical thinking, but also help with housing, finding employment and rebuilding their status. as a member of society. Such programs have the potential to provide such assistance. However, such opportunities should be "created in a social policy context that also guarantees opportunities for those who do not commit crimes", since everyone has the fundamental right to have their basic needs recognized and met. An example of such a program would be RNR – developed by McGuire & Priestly – which essentially focuses on three principles: risk, need and responsiveness. What it does is it examines the offender's risk of recidivism, assesses their criminogenic needs and targets them and, finally, offers cognitive-behavioral treatments. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. .Get a Custom EssayTo conclude, for rehabilitation to be successfully integrated into the penal system, it would be essential to take certain steps and better inform the public about the advances we are trying to make through this system and the potential benefits. this could have on society.