Since my second article was about capital punishment, I decided to shift to the other side of the spectrum by taking a look at rehabilitation again. Though I believe that punishment and rehabilitation work together to help deter crime, this article (for the most part) looked at them separately. However, it did a pretty good job of informing me on the details of both in the criminal justice system. See, typically there are four different goals in the criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with criminals. There's deterrence, punishment, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. The part of the article where I found my point supported the most was when it said "both punishment and rehabilitation are needed if the problem of crime is to be effectively addressed" (DeLuca). This line in the research fits what I said a couple posts ago perfectly. I think my question might need a bit of refining now; maybe I could turn it into something like "Would punishment and rehabilitation be a better as opposed to just executing the criminal?" and that would be a better solution. The article also talked about how America primarily uses incarceration, time, and money (fines) as the main punishment. Part of the sentence that the judge gives should offer an opportunity to rehabilitate the offender. The question that remains now is how long criminals should be incarcerated, incapacitated, and rehabilitated.