It is been said that if a student violates or breaches a policy or rule must be taken for such disciplinary action as it would serve as a consequence for a certain undesirable act. It would be considered that detention instills self-realization that is beneficial to the student's development and learning.
The effectiveness of detention as a discipline strategy is debatable, with evidence suggesting that rehabilitative measures and alternatives such as education and community service may be more effective in reducing recidivism and fostering positive societal reintegration.
Explanation:The effectiveness of detention as a disciplinary measure is a complex issue with varied perspectives and outcomes. The idea of detention, whether in schools for disciplining students or in the broader context of the criminal justice system for containing individuals, often sparks debate regarding its effectiveness in achieving reform and preventing future offenses. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger highlighted a critical point over thirty years ago, emphasizing that merely confining offenders without efforts to change them is an 'expensive folly' with only short-term benefits. The fundamental goal behind such punitive measures should be the rehabilitation of the individual, aiming at reducing recidivism and fostering a safer society.
Research and examples from different countries suggest that alternatives to detention, such as education, probation, and community service, could be more effective in addressing the root causes of the behavior and helping individuals reintegrate into society more positively. For instance, studies indicate that for juveniles, incarceration is often counterproductive, reducing their chances of returning to school and thereby increasing the likelihood of future offenses. Similarly, the approaches seen in Western European nations like Denmark and the Netherlands, which focus on rehabilitation and alternatives to imprisonment, may offer valuable lessons in treating offenders more humanely and effectively.