This essay takes a disagreement line of that statement. The retribution idea is that punishment should be considered by the seriousness of the crime itself, and not by determined that it in the criminal justice system is about "vengeance, retaliation or payback" ( Nicholas Tan, 1999). The debate between rehabilitation and retribution involves two questions, ideologically and practically. This means that this article is going to focus on comparing retribution and rehabilitation from two levels: to think which one is more satisfactory justification for punishment and which one can serve as a more useful guide for sentencers and other agents in the criminal justice system.
Firstly, the purpose of punishment is to demonstrate disapproval for the offender's wrongdoing, criminals should be punished, but not be punished merely to help them change for the better (rehabilitation). Society has its own rules, citizens should not be infringed, if they break the laws, they should in charge for their wrongdoings.
On the other hand, retribution is conveying to victims the acknowledgement that they have been wronged, in other words that is a right for victims. People always think that the term retribution means revenge, it is better to understand it as a developing sentencing system for criminals. Therefore, punishment should be justified by the aim of achieving justice or desert, however, not by the aim of rehabilitation. As Nicholas Tan point out that crime is "the result of choices made by individual", rather that the product of coincidence. From this perspective, it can be understood that the justice system must condemn these choices when they violate society's rules. Retribution, a very moral approach, to consider a criminal should take responsibility for he has done, but not only to make an excuse.
Countless prisons are becoming humanism at present; rehabilitation is...