The debate on whether we should rehabilitate or retribute prisoners has long been discussed. With a staggering 10,836,707 people in prison worldwide in 2019 and 20% of these people in the US alone, it's now more than never that we need to decide whether it's more beneficial to restore or repay a prisoner for their crimes.

Both sides bestow compelling arguments. Those that argue in favour of rehabilitation believe that it promotes a humanising belief: offenders can be saved from crime, and not just punished for it. Usually, those that offend come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, such as from a fatherless household or from incarcerated parents. Children exposed to crime from a young age are more likely to follow in their parents' footsteps and lead a life of lawlessness when older. So, really, is it the person's fault that they have offended when crime was ingrained into them from a young age?

By utilising rehabilitation here, offenders will regain moral consciousness and have the resources to learn why their actions were wrong and have the opportunity to fix them, as opposed to being punished for an action and not having the understanding to change the behaviour. Rehabilitation does not ignore society nor the victim of the crime- it places a great value on the rights of those impacted so tries hard to change the offender and prevent them reoffending. Reoffending rates are 46% lower when rehabilitation is used, which, overall, ensures that society is a safer place.

However, some disagree that rehabilitation is better suited to criminals than retribution. Many argue that the purpose of punishment is not to change the individual but to punish their crime and show disapproval towards their activities. If we do not show a criminal that their actions have consequences through the use of punishment, aren't they more likely to offend again as they haven't suffered?

Moreover, the justice argument is also very compelling. If we do not punish a criminal, are we serving justice to the victim, their family and to society? When a crime goes unpunished, society is effectively saying that the hardships and suffering the victim has endured are an over-exaggeration. Punishing the criminal pays back for their punishment of the victim. It's only fair. As for society, if a crime is not punished then the justice system has failed to show society that it takes the breach of laws and rules seriously. Do we want to be living in a society where criminals do not repent their crimes and do not pay their due to the distress they have caused their victim?

Rehabilitate or retribute? That is for you to decide.