The Readers Respond comments regarding crime and punishment in Baltimore (Yet another reminder of why I left Baltimore, Aug. 1) prompt reconsideration by Baltimore civic leaders on how best to address our horrific homicide rate and increasing criminal activity. Their perspective on the causality of crime, and the corresponding more lenient sentencing trends, seem rooted primarily in a belief that the best approach to mitigating crime is through a rehabilitative approach. While rehabilitation and resolution of some of our systemic poverty issues are certainly needed, our city leaders need to not forget that there are other mitigation models that must continue to be used in order to prevent further rampant crime and homicide in the city.

In 2010, David Mulhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis for The Heritage foundation, testified before Congress on the foundations analysis regarding theories of punishment and mandatory minimum sentences. In his testimony, Mr. Mulhausen cited the generally accepted methods of reducing criminal activity: deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation.

Deterrence postulates that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment in society deters members of society as a whole from committing crime. In layman terms, deterrence ensures that the administration of punishment is certain, swift, and imposes a severity commensurate with the crime, sending a message that crime will not be tolerated. According to the deterrence model, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere. Increasing the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment will result in the utilitarian goal of reduced crime.

Incapacitation does not require any assumptions about the criminals rationalism, or root causes of the criminals behavior. Incarceration is beneficial because the physical restraint of incarceration prevents the commission of further crimes against society during the duration of the sentence.

Rehabilitation assumes that society is the root cause of criminality. Under this model, crime is predominately a product of social factors. Consequently, criminal behavior is determined by societal forces, such as poverty, racial discrimination and lack of employment opportunities, so the object of criminal justice is to mitigate or eliminate those harmful forces. Assuming that structural defects in society cause crime, then criminals deserve rehabilitation, not punishment. Supporters of the rehabilitation model hold the perspective that correctional treatment programs can successfully reduce crime.

The study found that while rehabilitation is an important societal goal, it cannot come at the expense of deterrence and incapacitation. The root causes (poverty, racial discrimination and lack of employment opportunities) are systemic issues, and discussions about the best approaches to mitigate those issues are under continuing debate. In the meanwhile, criminals will continue to commit crimes, which is detrimental to society, including those living within the root causes environment cited above. Rehabilitation is a much needed and important component of mitigating our crime problem, but it cannot be used in isolation. The immediacy of criminal activity and the safety of our citizens require a recognized use of deterrence (swift and sure punishment) and, when warranted, incarceration as well. Society cannot rely solely on altruistic thinking while criminals continue to threaten our safety and well being. This type of broad, holistic approach will better serve the needs of our city.

Jerry Cothran, Baltimore

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Excerpt from:

We can't rehabilitate our way out of Baltimore's crime problems - Baltimore Sun