PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ON PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION, AND TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

Full text

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ON PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION,
AND TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the
College of Criminology
Iligan Capitol College
Iligan City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Subject
Criminological Research 2
(Research Methods with Applied Statistics)
Angel Jane E. Atay
John Paul B. Orcerada
Simbanatao Jr. M. Pandapatan
Badron B. Dowa
January 2024

APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the subject Criminological
Research 2, this undergraduate thesis entitled “PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ON
PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION, AND TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS”
prepared and submitted by Angel Jane E. Atay, John Paul B. Orcerada,
Simbanatao Jr. M. Pandapatan, and Badron B. Dowa, has been examined and
passed the final oral defense.
RAY VINCENT E. ARAÑA, PhD
Adviser
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
Approved by the Committee on Oral Examination with the grade of .
BROOKSHIELDS C. MONTERON, MSCrim
Chairman
AZORIN CERVANTES V. LAVIÑA, DM JUDY RITA A. BACALSO, MoB
Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science in Criminology.
BROOKSHIELDS C. MONTERON, MSCrim
Dean, College of Criminology
Date of Oral Defense: January 29, 2024

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the public's perceptions of punishment,
rehabilitation, and treatment within the criminal justice system. The purpose is to
gain insights into the diverse perspectives shaping these perceptions. A sample
of 300 respondents from varied demographics, including gender, age,
educational attainment, and group classification, was surveyed. The research
aims to inform policymakers and stakeholders about the public's stance on
crucial aspects of the criminal justice system, offering a comprehensive
understanding of societal expectations.
In analyzing the data, notable findings emerge. The study revealed a
balanced gender distribution, with 41% male, 58% female, and 1% identifying as
LGBTQIA+. Across age groups, respondents expressed varied views, with 10%
below 20 years old, 18% aged 20-29, and a diverse distribution in other brackets.
Educational backgrounds range from 0.3% elementary undergraduates to 25%
college graduates. The study also highlighted the perspectives of different
groups, including students, parents, police, teachers, and barangay officials. The
weighted mean distribution on perceptions of punishment, rehabilitation, and
treatment uncovers nuanced attitudes, such as a preference for alternative
punishments, a call for increased investment in prevention programs, and a
desire for transparent and fair sentencing practices.
In conclusion, this research underscored the importance of incorporating
public perspectives into criminal justice policies. The findings suggest a societal
shift towards favoring rehabilitation over punitive measures. Additionally,
concerns about corruption and sentencing disparities call for targeted
interventions to enhance transparency and equity within the criminal justice
system. Policymakers should consider these insights to align legislation with
societal values, fostering a more effective and inclusive criminal justice system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers express their heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the
individuals who have generously contributed to and supported the successful
completion of this study.
Special thanks to Dr. Ray Vincent E. Araña, for his invaluable
supervision, support, and guidance throughout the research study. It was a great
privilege and honor to work and study under his guidance.
The Panel Examiners, including Dr. Azorin Cervantes V. Laviña, Prof.
Judy Rita A. Bacalso, and Prof. Brookshields C. Monteron, deserve heartfelt
acknowledgment for their individual and valuable contributions. Their advice,
comments, ideas, opinions, recommendations, and suggestions were
instrumental in making this paper possible.
To the community respondents, comprising students, parents, teachers,
barangay officials, and police, we express our gratitude for their approachability,
cooperation, and time dedicated to responding to the questionnaires.
To the most supportive parents, they extend their gratitude for the
unending love and support their parents have showered upon them throughout
their academic journey.
Most importantly, the researchers wholeheartedly express their gratitude
and praise to the ever-loving and merciful God.
The Researchers

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page i
Approval Sheet ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
CHAPTER
I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction 1
Conceptual Framework of the Study 3
Schematic Diagram of the Study 3
Statement of the Problem 4
Hypothesis 5
Significance of the Study 5
Scope and Delimitation of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 7
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Related Literature 10
Related Studies 13
III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design 25
Locale of the Study 25
Respondents of the Study 26
Sampling Design 27
Data Gathering Procedure 27
Research Instrument 28
Statistical Treatment of Data 29
Scoring Procedure 30
IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 31
V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION 54
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY 59
APPENDICES 63
CURRICULUM VITAE 77

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Scoring guide to determine the perceptions of the respondents on 30
our criminal justice system and the problems observed by the
respondents in our criminal justice system.
2 Distribution of the Respondents according to Profile 32
3 Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents‟ Perception on the 34
Criminal Justice System in terms of Punishment of Offenders
4 Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents Perception on the 37
Criminal Justice System in terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders
5 Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents Perception on the 40
Criminal Justice System in terms of Treatment of Offenders
6 Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the respondents 43
of the criminal justice system in terms of punishment of offenders
when grouped according to their profile
7 Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the respondents 45
of the criminal justice system in terms of rehabilitation of offenders
when grouped according to their profile
8 Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the respondents 47
of the criminal justice system in terms of treatment of offenders
when grouped according to their profile
9 Weighted mean distribution of the problems observed by the 49
respondents in our criminal justice system
10 Proposed Action Plan 51

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Table Title Page
1 Schematic Diagram of the Study 3
2 Map of the five selected barangays in Iligan City: Barangay Tubod, 26
Barangay Tambacan, Barangay Palao, Barangay Saray, and
Barangay Santiago

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Public perceptions of punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of
offenders are shaped by a complex interplay of factors. The retributive mindset,
rooted in the idea of proportionate punishment, can lead to a belief that harsh
penalties are the primary solution for addressing crime. But while retributive
justice includes a commitment to punishment that is proportional to the crime, it
cannot be reduced to a measure of proportionality (Tonry, 2019). Stigma and
stereotypes also play a role, often portraying offenders as irredeemable and
dangerous individuals. These perceptions hinder the public's willingness to
support rehabilitation efforts and can perpetuate a cycle of retribution. The
structural barriers affecting criminal offenders‟ integration in the community has
been described in depth elsewhere (Morani, et al. 2011). Offenders‟
psychological responses to stigma may be important in understanding their
reintegration in the community after release from jail or prison.
However, despite progress in grasping public perceptions of punishment
and rehabilitation, a significant gap remains. Existing research sheds light on
these views, yet a deeper exploration is needed into why support for punitive
measures persists, despite evidence favoring rehabilitation. This gap calls for
comprehensive examination of how media, culture, and personal experiences sh-

2
ape these perspectives. This understanding not only refines policy but also
nurtures an informed public discourse, vital for just and effective criminal justice.
Therefore, a study addressing this gap can greatly enhance our grasp of
underlying dynamics in this crucial realm.
The role of public perception in shaping criminal justice policies and
practices is an important aspect of the interdependency between members of the
general public and the criminal justice system. The types of law and the type of
sanctions that are imposed, as well as the amount of resources allocated to
rehabilitation programs for offenders could be affected by public perception of the
criminal justice system. Public support for policies supporting the rehabilitation of
offenders and community safety is more likely when people perceive the criminal
justice system to operate efficiently and fairly. In contrast, a negative perception
of the criminal justice system can result in a preference for harsher punishments
and decreased support for offender rehabilitation programs. This study aimed to
determine public perceptions of punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of
offenders to ensure efficient coordination and communication between the
community and the criminal justice system.

3
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Dependent Variables
Independent Variables Output
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Study
As shown in figure 1, the schematic diagram of the study shows the
independent variables which are the demographic characteristics of the
respondents of Iligan City including the gender, age, educational attainment, and
group classification. On the other hand, the dependent variables are the following
that includes Punishment of Offenders, Rehabilitation of Offenders, and
Treatment of Offenders. The expected output of the study is the attitudes of the
public for the punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of the offenders based of
the findings of the study.
Profile of
Respondents
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Educational
Attainment
4. Group
Classification
Problems Observed
in the Philippine
Criminal Justice
System
Perception on
Criminal Justice
System
1. Punishment of
Offenders
2. Rehabilitation of
Offenders
3. Treatment of
Offenders
Action Plan

4
Statement of the Problem
It is generally known that the legal system cannot function effectively
without the support of the general public. The perceptions of the public on the
criminal justice system are important because there is a certain amount of
interdependency between members of the general public and the criminal justice
system.
This study aimed to determine the public perceptions on punishment,
rehabilitation, and treatment of offenders. Specifically, it would answer the
following research questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms:
1.1 Gender;
1.2 Age;
1.3 Educational Attainment; and
1.4 Group Classification
1.4.1 Student
1.4.2 Parent
1.4.3 Teacher
1.4.4 Barangay Official
1.4.5 Police?
2. What are the perceptions of the respondents on our criminal justice
system in terms of:
2.1 Punishment of the offenders;

5
2.2 Rehabilitation of the offenders; and
2.3 Treatment of the offenders?
3. Is there a significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents on
the criminal justice system when grouped according to their profile?
4. What are the problems observed by the respondents in our criminal
justice system?
5. What action plan can be proposed based on the findings of the study?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant difference in the perceptions of the respondents on
the criminal justice system when grouped according to their profile.
Significance of the Study
Knowing the perceptions of the community regarding on the programs for
the offenders was the main point of this study. The generalization of this present
study was great contribution to the vast knowledge in relation to Criminology
student's objectives. Vital results of this investigation were highly significant and
beneficial specifically to the following:
Academe. This study will conduct an academic exploration of public
attitudes toward punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of offenders. It aims to
provide insights that can shape evidence-based policies, ultimately contributing
to the development of a criminal justice system aligned with societal values and
expectations.

6
. Law Enforcers. This study will highlight that they are the prime mover of
the Criminal Justice System, responsible for enforcing the law, apprehending
offenders, and ensuring the safety and security of the public community.
Public Community. This study will focus on the important subjects. Their
perceptions are high valued since they will be given a chance to restore the
relationship with the offender.
Offenders. This study will examine how public perception of treatment
and rehabilitation of offenders can influence the way offenders are treated. If the
public holds a belief in harsh punishment, they may be less likely to support
programs that prioritize treatment and rehabilitation.
Future Researchers. This study will provide baseline data and serve as a
reference for future similar studies exploring Public Perceptions on Punishment,
Rehabilitation, and Treatment of offenders.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study was limited to identifying the factors that influence the public
perception on punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of offenders, such as
gender, age, educational attainment, and group classification. As the perception
of punishment, rehabilitation and treatment of offenders is a complex and
multifaceted issue, which is influenced by a wide range of individual and societal
factors, it is important to note that this study did not intend to provide conclusive
results on the responses of the respondents. Moreover, the following
respondents of this study were the residents of the following barangays in Iligan

7
City this includes the Barangay Tubod, Barangay Tambacan, Barangay Palao,
Barangay Saray, and Barangay Santiago. Likewise, these specific barangays
were chosen because they were conveniently located near the school and
homes, making it easier for the researchers to find residents who are willing to
participate in this study.
Definition of Terms
In the field of criminal justice, it is crucial to grasp how the general public
views punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of offenders. As society changes,
so do people's opinions about these essential aspects of the justice system. To
make sure we have a clear and consistent understanding, this section aims to
explain the key terms used in our study.
Criminal Justice. Interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal
courts, correctional institutions (e.g., prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as
well as of the agents who operate within these institutions.
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-justice)
Criminological Treatment. Individual or group treatment intended for
offenders, aiming to promote awareness about moral disengagement of their
actions, award of all the damages caused and to identify new strategies to
prevent or reduce repeat offence.
(https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/criminological-treatment)
Justice System. The institutions that are central to resolving conflicts
arising over alleged violations or different interpretations of the rules that

8
societies create to govern members‟ behavior; and that, as a consequence, are
central to strengthening the normative framework that shapes public and private
actions.(https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9885916116740669440090022021
/original/JusticeSystem.pdf)
Public Perception. A belief or opinion often held by many people and
based on how things seem. Public perception is simply the type of information
obtained from a public opinion survey. That is, “public opinion” is merely the
aggregate views of a group of people (usually a randomly selected sample) who
are asked directly what they think about particular issues or events.
(igi-global.com/dictionary/soft-or-hard-power-in-diplomacy/114293)
Punishment. The infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for
a misdeed (i.e., the transgression of a law or command). Punishment may take
forms ranging from capital punishment, imprisonment, and fines. Deferred
punishments consist of penalties that are imposed only if an offense is repeated
within a specified time. (britannica.com/topic/punishment)
Rehabilitation. Is the process of re-educating and preparing those who
have committed a crime, to re-enter society. The goal is to address all of the
underlying root causes of crime in order to ensure inmates will be able to live a
crime-free lifestyle once they ,bare released from prison.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology))
Social Norms. Social norms refer to values, beliefs, attitudes, and/or
behaviors shared by a group of people. They are often based on what people

9
believe to be normal, typical, or appropriate. Social norms can function as
unspoken rules or guidelines for how people behave, and for how people are
expected to behave.
(https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/main/prevention-information/35)
Society. A large group of people who live together in an organized way,
making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be
done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries.
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/society)

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter represents the related literature and related studies on Public
Perceptions on Punishment of offenders, Rehabilitation of offenders and
Treatment of offenders. The study conducted also presents both foreign sources
and local sources.
Related Literature
Punishment of Offenders
The phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied" is still applicable today.
This is because the slow and inefficient handling of cases by the Philippine
Criminal Justice System has caused people to lose faith in the government. The
Philippine Criminal Justice System is failing to deliver fast and efficient justice,
leading to public distrust in the government (Valenzuela, 2016). However, some
have likened the public's support for strong criminal justice measures to an
excessive craving, similar to a desire for “ice cream”, due to their appetite for
punishing criminal behavior. Moreover, the underlying reasons for this desire
remain unclear. Furthermore, supporting strict criminal justice measures
waslinked to feeling furious towards offenders, which often translated into
harsher sentences for lawbreakers (Côté-Lussier, 2016).

11
When it comes to fairness and effectiveness of the American criminal
justice system they suggest that to rebuild citizen confidence, improvements
need to happen across the board in courts, prisons, and policing together. In
addition, criminal justice institutions will have to work more effectively with other
institutions from schools and churches to businesses and election systems to
ensure that apprehensions and punishments of wrongdoers are appropriate,
tempered with mercy, and informed by intelligent efforts at rehabilitation (Justice
& Meares, 2014).
The war on drugs in the Philippines and issues related to extra-judicial
killing clearly shows the popular harsh punishment can be in states that have
failed to meet their citizens' hopes for freedom, economic growth, and security
(Johnson & Fernquest, 2018). Moreover, the war on drugs in the Philippines
during the first year of Rodrigo Duterte's presidency, where thousands of people
were killed by police or vigilantes who were encouraged to prosecute his war on
drugs (Johnson & Fernquest, 2018).
Rehabilitation of Offenders
Rehabilitation has gained support in recent years as a more effective and
humane approach to punishment. Rehabilitation focuses on addressing the root
causes of criminal behavior and reducing recidivism rates by helping offenders
reform and become productive members of society. However, Gul (2018) notes
that in practice, many countries still rely on punitive approaches to punishment,
with prisons being overcrowded and offenders having limited access to

12
education, training, and other programs that could help them reform. To reduce
recidivism rates and promote rehabilitation, Gul (2018) suggests a shift towards a
more rehabilitative approach to punishment that addresses the underlying
causes of criminal behavior and helps offenders reform and reintegrate into
society.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders is an important aspect of the criminal
justice system, the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-convict back into society
after they have completed their punishments (Tariq, 2020). Moreover, there is a
need for a policy-based approach to facilitate the rehabilitation and reintegration
of ex-convicts back into society in Pakistan (Tariq, 2020). Furthermore, a policy-
based stance is necessary for facilitating the readjustment of ex-convicts who
have desisted from crime in Pakistan because the current legal system lacks a
principle-based mechanism for exoneration of ex-convicts and the absence of
uniformity and consistency of rules deprive the majority of ex-offenders from the
right to secure respectable reintegration into society (Tariq, 2020).
Treatment of Offenders
Reintegrating offenders back into their communities and society is a
universally recognized goal of correctional systems. To ensure successful
reintegration of offenders into society after their discharge from detention
centers, jails, penal institutions, or rehabilitation centers, it is necessary to
provide them with assistance in reuniting with their families and reintegrating into
the community (Yangco, 2019). Moreover, acknowledging that the community is

13
often the place where the offense or crime occurred, it is essential to engage the
community to take greater responsibility for rehabilitating offenders and
preventing repeat offenses (Yangco, 2019).
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Sex Offender Treatment Program
(SOTP) is a comprehensive rehabilitation program designed to reduce recidivism
rates among sex offenders while providing them with transition services as they
reintegrate into society (Jones, 2019). According to the BOP, the SOTP is
evidence-based and employs landmark research in sex offender treatment.
However, there are concerns that some program details may limit its
effectiveness (Jones, 2019).
Related Studies
Punishment of Offenders
According to Van Ginneken et al., (2017) “punishment” is a central
element of criminal justice. The two primary concepts of punishment have been
identified as deprivation of liberty and harsh treatment. Moreover, the study found
significant differences in interpretation and subjective experience of punishment,
which have implications for the concept of retributive justice as well as its
function more generally. In addition to these deprivations, there are restrictions
on family visits, the possibility of normal employment and compliance with prison
rules. On the other hand, punishment requires hard treatment beyond deprivation
of liberty.
The way in which fines are pronounced and enforced constitutes one such

14
source of confusion. Criminal and criminal law may be broken down into two
types in the Philippines, each of them punished by means of a Revised Penal
Code as well as through Special Penal Laws (Nicolas & De Vega Law Offices,
n.d).
In another study conducted by Penal Reform International (2018) survey
were divided on whether punishment should be retribution or deterrence, with
40.5% favoring retribution and 44.3% supporting deterrence. According to the
study, there were no significant correlations found between demographic or
social factors and respondents' opinions on capital punishment. However, it was
stated on their results that both men and women, respondents with different
educational level, and those in different financial situations all showed support for
the death penalty. Furthermore, it does not provide information on any
correlations between respondents' opinions on capital punishment and their
feelings of safety.
Rehabilitation of Offenders
In a study conducted by Castelino (2021) society plays an important role
in shaping the actions of offenders; by that rehabilitation of offenders is an
approach which aims to the betterment of the society and transforming the
offender into a better version of him by providing the adequate help and guidance
needed. Moreover, its purpose is to help the offenders to not repeat his mistakes
and stops him from committing any other crime in the future. Hence, the study

15
concluded that there is a need for change in the current approach of punishment
for offenders.
Based on the study conducted by Murhula et al., (2019) to reduce
recidivism rates they proposes alternative approaches based on Restorative
Justice and Good Lives Model. Furthermore, they found out that in 2014, 4% of
offenders were sentenced to between 0 to 6 months, while 18% were sentenced
to between 10 to 15 years. The total number of offenders sentenced in 2014 was
1,124,607. However, the current approach towards rehabilitating offenders is not
effective in reducing recidivism rates and it should introduce approach to achieve
successful rehabilitation of offenders.
According to the study of Kusada (2014) it explores the sentenced male
offender‟s perception on the social services and rehabilitation programs offered
at Chikurubi Farm Prison in Zimbabwe. Moreover, the study found out that there
were various rehabilitation programs offered at the prison namely; agricultural,
educational, vocational, recreational, life skills, spiritual and psychosocial
therapeutic programs and most inmates felt that the rehabilitation programs were
good and helpful, to prepared them for release and provided them with
knowledge and skills. However, in another study of Ngozwana (2017)
rehabilitation programs are ineffective that are imposed on offenders. Moreover,
offenders find themselves as hard-laborer whenever they participated in
rehabilitation programs.

16
Treatment of Offenders
In a study conducted by Escabel, et al., (2015) two approaches to
treatment of offenders have been introduced by the Philippine prison system.
There are Institutionally Based Treatment Programs as well as Community
Based Treatment Programs. These programs have been designed for the
improvement of offender attitudes and life philosophy. The main objectives of
these programs are to reform, rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for
reintegration into society. They found out that the majority of inmates in Batangas
City Jail are between the ages of 26-33, single, and have not completed high
school. They typically have prison sentences of less than one year and are often
involved in drug-related cases. The inmates find the Therapeutic Community
Modality Program to be effective, particularly the work and educational therapy
services, livelihood skill training, counseling and religious services, and medical
services. The effectiveness of the program is related to the age, civil status, and
length of prison sentence of the inmates.
Walkden, et al., (2021) associates the mental illness and dangerous
behavior, leading to the development of stigma and negative public attitudes. The
public often overestimates the risk posed by offenders with mental illness and
attributes a higher level of dangerousness and greater likelihood of violence to
this population. Moreover, it is highlighted how important for researcher
accurately measure and identify the public attitudes towards Mentally Disordered
Offenders MDOs. Furthermore, Glendinning, et al., (2015) argues that assessing
attitudes towards offenders with mental health problems would enable a better

17
understanding of the formation of negative attitudes and stigmatization and
therefore, ways of tackling treatment, rehabilitation, and community reintegration.
Foreign Studies
Punishment of Offenders
In a study by Tanu Priya (2014) explains that the objective of punishment
is to reform the person into a better individual to not commit the same crime
again. This form of approach is not only helpful for the offender but for the society
as well as the state. According to the study, crime is committed due to external
factors or societal pressure due to which the individual acts out of proportion and
hence tends to commit a crime. Punishment is given to reform the offender
himself and not for others and hence it is important to tailor it according to the
needs of the offender including therapy as well as counseling. The study also
mentions sociology and the need to improve social conditions for offenders to not
resort to such means.
Schinkel (2014) the upshot of this diversity of offenders‟ perceptions is
twofold. First, there is no agreement among offenders in their interpretation of
punishment: some only considered the deprivation of liberty, while others
expected further hard treatment to be inflicted. Yet others also considered
unintended negative consequences during or after their sentence to form part of
their punishment. This suggests not only that punishment fails to consistently
communicate its content to offenders, found, but that there is not even an agreed

18
language for communication: punishment means very different things to different
people.
Looking at public attitudes about punishment over time, across culture and
societies, and in a variety of ways can help explain why social responses to
crime change and why some people or groups of people are more punitive than
others. Two ideas are helpful in organizing motivations for punishment. First,
public support for punishment may be motivated by rational, instrumental
interests about how best to protect public safety. Public concern about crime is a
particularly important influence on trends in the public mood, but fear of crime
and victimization are inconsistently related to how individuals feel about
punishment. Second, attitudes about punishment are tied to expressive desires.
Attitudes are influenced by culture and moral beliefs about how to respond to
harm and violations of the law. Thus attitudes about punishment are relevant in
understanding how the public thinks about the problem of crime, as how people
think and feel about crime influences what they think and feel should be done
about it. (Schwaeble & Sundt, 2020)
Rehabilitation of Offenders
In a research conducted by Berenji et al., (2014) titled as “Recidivism and
Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: A Carrot and Stick Evolutionary Game”
introduce a theory called “the carrot stick” game where non-offenders are
exposed to the option of committing a crime. The paper goes on further to
explain the effectiveness of rehabilitation theory with the help of a mathematical

19
model and concludes that social intervention along with punishment has proved
to be effective in the prevention of committing a crime. The paper mentions that
the offenders are first subject to the stick with is punishment and later introduced
to the carrot which is the rehabilitation process which helps them realize their
faults and aims at improving the approach of the offenders in converting them
into a better human being. The paper also explains at optimal allocation of
resources towards punishment and later rehabilitation has proved to reduce the
crime rates and prevent reoccurrence of the crime.
In another research by Vidit (2017) titled “Correctional & Rehabilitative
Techniques of Punishment: A Need for Legislative Reform in India” explains that
rehabilitation theory is based on the concept that an offender tends to commit a
crime due to unfavorable conditions and social circumstances and the society is
obliged to intervene in order to help the offender to right the wrong done. The
paper also highlighted two different philosophies of community orientations-
Community incapacitation and Community rehabilitation. The paper further
mentions the inadequate conditions of prison and prisoners and the need for a
new and revised approach towards the behavior of offenders. The author
concludes by states that the Indian Prison System has proved to be
counterproductive and it seems to have neglected the rehabilitative approach of
punishment.
In a study conducted by Meena (2019) titled “Correctional Methods for
Rehabilitation of Offenders in India” states the need for rehabilitation and
mentions it to be a primary objective in any correctional institute. The author

20
states that imprisonment or punishment will help for the particular period of time
however, in order to reform the offender into a law-abiding citizen it is important
for the rehabilitation approach for the safety of both the individual as well as the
society. The research paper while explaining the reformative theory of
punishment states that with the development in the field of criminal science there
has a shift in the way criminology was perceived. Individualized treatment is
given importance to with the help of rehabilitation of offenders. There has been a
shift in the way of thinking as the focus has now changed from punishment for
crime committed to reforming the individual into a law-abiding citizen of the
society. While reformative theory has proved beneficial it cannot be adopted in all
cases as hard core criminals continue to possess a greater threat to the society.
The paper also states that the mental depravity that offenders face in prisons
make it inevitable to provide them with corrective clinical treatment.
Treatment of Offenders
How do we know whether treatment has worked? Psychological treatment
with offenders is typically said to have “worked” if a treatment completer avoids
being convicted of a new offence in a specified follow-up period. Conversely,
treatment is said to have failed if the individual is reconvicted. Based on this
criterion for success, research has shown offender rehabilitation can work: it can
lead to modest reductions in recidivism Bonta & Andrews (2017). But whether a
treatment completer somehow manages to avoid are conviction following
treatment tells us little about how offender rehabilitation works. This study
explores possible mechanisms of change in a sample of high-risk male offenders

21
who completed intensive prison-based rehabilitation and were released from
prison onto parole.
Although typical outcome evaluations can tell us whether the treatment
reduced subsequent rates of recidivism, they provide little information about how.
This study tests two assumptions underlying successful treatment with a sample
of high-risk offenders released onto parole in New Zealand. We have already
found with this sample that treated offenders were significantly less likely to be
reconvicted than men who had not undertaken treatment here we extend that
research in two Mechanisms of change in offender rehabilitation ways
(Polaschek, et al. 2016).
Local Studies
Punishment of Offenders
In "Exploring the Consequences of Prolonged Pretrial Incarceration:
Evidence from a Local Jurisdiction in the Philippines" (Narag, 2019), Narag
examines the effects of extended pretrial detention in a specific Philippine
jurisdiction. Published in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice, the study highlights the social, economic, and psychological
impacts of prolonged pretrial incarceration. Narag's findings underscore the
urgent need for reforms within the Philippine criminal justice system to address
the challenges associated with extended pretrial detention, contributing valuable
insights to the local discourse on criminal justice reform efforts.

22
In "Punishing the Punisher: The Role of the International Criminal Court in
Ending Duterte's War on Drugs" (Smeallie, 2018), Smeallie examines the
potential involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addressing
President Duterte's controversial war on drugs in the Philippines. Published in the
Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ, this study explores the role of international legal
mechanisms in holding accountable those responsible for human rights violations
in the context of the drug war. Smeallie's analysis provides valuable insights into
the implications of international intervention on Duterte's drug policy and its
alignment with global standards of justice. This study contributes to the local
discourse on the Duterte administration's approach to drug enforcement and its
implications for international relations and human rights.
Rehabilitation of Offenders
According to Gideon & Lee (2020) drug users may be forced to participate
in drug rehabilitation under the Duterte administration through three main
channels: first of all, through the Oplan Tokhang "request to surrender" campaign
led by police and law enforcement; next, through court-mandated rehabilitation of
those who have been arrested for drug use; and lastly, by parents-initiated
admission without a court order.
According to Maretti (2016), President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs has
resulted in nearly 6,000 fatalities, including an estimated 2,051 fatalities during
police operations. Along with these, there are also more prisoners, people
detained by the police, and people housed in rehabilitation facilities. In the

23
Philippines, there are 40 public and private rehabilitation facilities. The centers
have also been congested ever since Duterte's anti-drug campaign began. Some
people have made the decision to enter rehab because they worry, they will be
the target of police raids or vigilante groups.
Private rehabilitation can take many forms, from support groups run by
clergy in the largely Catholic country to pricey treatment programs that cost
hundreds of dollars a month and are therefore out of the reach of many Filipinos.
Drug users are given carpentry lessons and paid 5,000 Philippine pesos ($103)
per month to construct wooden coffins in Olongapo, 220,000-person city three
hours north of Manila. The caskets are given to the city's poorest families who
cannot afford funeral services, according to government officials. They are made
of plain plywood and painted white (de Castro, 2016).
Reyes (2022) asserts that drug rehabilitation can help people recover from
an illness known as an addiction that has an impact on both their behavior and
brain. Drug users are taught how to stop using drugs and re-establish
themselves as contributing members of society through the use of efficient
treatment modalities. The Philippines only had 44 private and public treatment
facilities, with a combined capacity of just 7,200, before the government recently
announced plans for a new "mega" rehab center, according to the chairman of
the committee in charge of creating the country's drug policy. Up to 10,000
patients will be accommodated and treated at the new "mega" rehabilitation
center, which was made possible by a charitable donation from Chinese real
estate developer Huang Rulun.

24
Treatment of Offenders
Conde (2016) found out that many detention facilities in the Philippines do
not meet the minimum requirements set by the UN for these facilities, including
insufficient food, inadequate nutrition, and unhygienic conditions. Other forms of
cruel treatment, such as torture, are also frequent. Posting bail is frequently not
an option because the majority of those who break the law are poor. And even if
they have the money to pay bail, many inmates in most of these jails are being
held on non-bailable drug-related charges. Tamayo (2021) conducted research
and concluded that inmate violence, filthy living conditions, and overcrowding are
to blame for the deaths. In addition to overcrowding, substandard housing, and
inmate violence, NBP lacks nourishing food and fundamental healthcare, he
continued, and there were "uncontrollable outbreaks of pulmonary tuberculosis."
Thankfully, politicians and inmates are attempting to lessen prison overcrowding
in the Philippines.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodological procedures that will be utilized
in describing and interpreting data and subdivided into the following: research
design, locale of the study, respondents of the study, sampling design, data
gathering procedure, instrument used, statistical treatment of data and scoring
procedure.
Research Design
This study used the descriptive-correlational research design which
means it is a type of research design that tries to explain the relationship
between two or more variables without making any claims about cause and effect
(Bhat, n.d). To determine The Public Perceptions on Punishment, Rehabilitation,
and Treatment of Offenders. Here the data on the demographic profile of the
respondents about their gender, age, educational attainment, and group
classification. An acquired questionnaire from a published relevant study used in
gathering data from the respondents.
Locale of the Study
The selected barangays in Iligan City, Philippines where this study was
conducted were Barangay Tubod, Barangay Tambacan, Barangay Palao
Barangay Saray, and Barangay Santiago. The main reason why these specific

26
barangays within Iligan City were chosen is that they are approximately close to
both school and residences. In this way, the researchers can simplify the process
of finding residents willing to participate in this study
Figure 2. The map abpve displays the location of the five selected
barangays in Iligan City: Barangay Tubod, Barangay Tambacan,
Barangay Palao, Barangay Saray, and Barangay Santiago
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the sixty (60) residents from each five
(5) selected barangays in Iligan City, namely Barangay Tubod, Barangay
Tambacan, Barangay Palao, Barangay Saray, and Barangay Santiago. These
respondents were based on group classifications in their designated barangays
in Iligan City, constituting total of (300) respondents. By limiting the number of
respondents to sixty (60) per barangay, the researchers could effectively gather

27
comprehensive insights from various demographic groups such as students,
parents, teachers, barangay officials, and police, allowing for a nuanced
understanding of the research topic within the specified context.
Sampling Design
The researchers applied stratified random sampling, a method whereby
researchers randomly selected samples based on various demographic profile of
the respondents such as gender, age, educational attainment, and group
classification from different levels of the population. This sampling method
ensures that the sample is representative of the population and that the variability
within the population is taken into account in the sampling process when the
population of interest has class stratification or groupings. The researchers
required to randomly selecting sixty (60) respondents from each barangays
within Iligan City only, and a total of three hundred (300) respondents coming
from the five (5) barangays was gathered.
Data Gathering Procedure
The data gathering process was conducted in accordance with proper
protocols. Following the finalization of the questionnaire, the researchers asked
for approval from Prof. Brookshields C. Monteron, the Dean of the Criminology
Department, to conduct the survey. This is done to ensure that all necessary
permissions were obtained prior to the commencement of the research.
Moreover, the researchers asked permission from the barangay captain of the
five selected barangays in Iligan City: Barangay Tubod, Barangay Tambacan,

28
Barangay Palao, Barangay Saray, and Barangay Santiago. After acquiring
permission from its barangay official, the researchers explained the content
behind conducting the study about the questionnaires to the respondents to
ensure that they are fully aware and understand the questions. Also the
researchers used vernacular language. After answering the entire questionnaire,
all the confidential pieces of information gathered from the residents of the
selected barangays were all safe and secured.
Instrument Used
A survey questionnaire is the main data collection instrument used in this
study. It is designed to gain insights into the perspectives held by members of the
community. The questionnaire is closed-ended, focusing on collecting
quantitative data, including demographic information such as gender, age,
educational attainment, and group classification. The subsequent sections of the
questionnaire cover topics such as the punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment
of offenders, using a Likert scale. Additionally, the last set of questions aimed to
provide their views on observed problems within the criminal justice system. To
conduct the study, obtaining permission from each barangay captain through a
letter, seeking access to their community, and securing consent from the
community as required.

29
Statistical Treatment of Data
The researchers used the following statistical tools:
1. Frequency and Percentage. This was used to answer the
demographic profile of the respondents in terms of gender, age, educational
attainment, and Group Classification.
n where:
P= ×100 n = Actual number of the respondents
N N = Total number of the respondents
100 = Constant
2. Weighted Mean. This was used to determine the perceptions of the
respondents on our criminal justice system in terms of: Punishment of the
offenders; Rehabilitation of the offenders; and Treatment of the offenders and the
problems observed by the respondents in our criminal justice system.
∑ni=1 xi wi
E=
n
3. ANOVA. This was used to determine if there is a significant difference
in the perceptions of the respondents on our criminal justice system who grouped
according to demographic profile in terms of gender, age, and educational
attainment.
  
 


30
Variance is given by the following formula
󰇛  󰇜
   
Where;
 = variance
x = Values given in a set of data
x = Mean of data
n = Total number of values
Scoring Procedure
Table 1. Scoring guide to determine the perceptions of the respondents on
our criminal justice system and the problems observed by the
respondents in our criminal justice system
Hypothetical
Mean Range
Numerical
Scale
Verbal Description
Interpretation
4.20 – 5.00
5
Strongly Agree
To a very large
extent
3.40 – 4.19
4
Agree
To a large extent
2.60 – 3.39
3
Undecided
To a moderate
extent
1.80 – 2.59
2
Disagree
To a lesser extent
1.0 – 1.79
1
Strongly Disagree
To no extent at all

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the result, the analysis and interpretation of data
gathered from the answers to the questionnaires distributed to the field. The said
data were presented in tabular form in accordance with the specific questions
posited on the statement of the problem.
Problem 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Gender
1.2 Age
1.3 Educational Attainment
1.4 Group Classification
The balance distribution among group classifications, including parents,
police, teachers, and barangay officials, ensures a comprehensive understanding
of public opinions from various societal roles. The LGBTQIA+ representation is
limited, potentially impacting the study‟s ability to capture diverse perspectives
within this demographic.

32
Table 2. Distribution of the Respondents according to Profile
Profile
Frequency
Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
LGBTQIA+
Total
122
174
4
300
41
58
1
100
Age
Below 20 years old
20-29 years old
30-39 years old
40-49 years old
50-59 years old
60 years old and above
Total
30
55
88
71
35
21
300
10
18
29
24
12
7
100
Educational Attainment
Elementary Undergraduate
Elementary Graduate
High School Undergraduate
High School Graduate
College Undergraduate
College Graduate
Total
1
2
28
31
76
162
300
0.3
0.7
9
11
25
54
100
Group Classification
Student
Parent
Police
Teacher
Barangay Official
Total
60
60
60
60
60
300
20
20
20
20
20
100
The profile distribution shown in Table 2 above reflects a fairly balanced
representation, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of diverse
perspectives. Varied age groups contribute to capturing insights across different
life stages and experiences. Educational attainment diversity allows for analysis
based on educational backgrounds, influencing perspectives on rehabilitation
and punishment.

33
These demographic details are crucial for interpreting and generalizing the
findings of the research, providing insights into how different demographic groups
perceive punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of offenders.
Problem 2. What are the perceptions of the respondents on our criminal
justice system in terms of:
2.1 Punishment of offenders
2.2 Rehabilitation of offenders
2.3 Treatment of offenders
Public perceptions on punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment of
offenders within the Philippine criminal justice system offer a multifaceted
framework through which to examine societal attitudes towards addressing
crime. These perceptions not only shed light on whether the public prefers
rehabilitation or punitive punishment but also provide valuable insights into
broader societal expectations regarding justice, offender accountability, and the
potential for rehabilitation to reduce recidivism and promote community safety.
As such, understanding public perceptions can inform policymakers and
practitioners in crafting more effective, evidence-based strategies that align with
societal values and aspirations for a fair and just society.

34
Table 3. Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on the
Criminal Justice System in terms of Punishment of Offenders
Indicators
Weighted
Mean
Verbal
Description
Interpretation
Rank
1. I believe that punishment should be
severe and punitive to deter potential
offenders.
4.46
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
2
2. I understand that punishment is a way
to send a strong message that criminal
behavior will not be tolerated.
4.54
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
1
3. I know that offenders should receive
punishments that are proportional to the
harm they have caused.
4.39
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
4
4. I see punishment as a way for society
to express disapproval of wrongdoing.
4.40
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
3
5. I want alternative forms of punishment
like community service or restorative
justice be considered than incarceration.
3.89
Agree
To a large
extent
10
6. I am in favor of requiring offenders to
pay monetary fines as a form of
punishment.
4.11
Agree
To a large
extent
9
7. I believe that death penalty is the best
punishment for the most serious crimes as
a means of protecting society from
potential harm.
4.13
Agree
To a large
extent
8
8. I want the criminal justice system to
invest more in prevention and early
intervention programs to reduce crime and
recidivism.
4.35
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
5.5
9. I believe that harsher punishments such
as longer prison sentences are necessary
to reduce crime.
4.35
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
5.5
10. I prefer offenders with substance
abuse issues may be required to undergo
drug or alcohol treatment as part of their
punishment.
4.31
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
7
Overall Weighted Mean
4.29
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
Table 3 provides the weighted mean distribution of respondents'
perception on our criminal justice system in terms of punishment of offenders.
Strong Emphasis on Severity and Deterrence: The respondents overwhelmingly
support severe punishment as a deterrent (Rank 2) and emphasize that
punishment sends a strong message against criminal behavior (Rank 1).
Recognition of Proportional Punishment: While there's a strong inclination

35
towards severe punishment, there's also acknowledgment of the need for
proportional punishment, indicating a nuanced perspective (Rank 4). Societal
Expression and Disapproval: The respondents recognize punishment as a way
for society to express disapproval of wrongdoing, highlighting a social dimension
to their perceptions (Rank 3).
Mixed Views on Alternative Punishments: The preference for alternative
forms of punishment, like community service, ranks relatively lower, suggesting a
preference for more traditional punitive measures (Rank 10). Varied Opinions on
Death Penalty: While there is support for the death penalty (Rank 8), it is not the
top-ranked preference, indicating a degree of diversity in views on the most
serious crimes. Emphasis on Prevention and Intervention: The respondents
strongly agree on the importance of investing in prevention and early intervention
programs, emphasizing a holistic approach to addressing crime (Rank 5.5).
Mixed Perspective on Harsher Punishments: There is a split perspective on the
necessity of harsher punishments for crime reduction, sharing the 5th rank (Rank
5.5), reflecting differing views within the respondents. Recognition of Treatment
for Substance Abuse: Respondents recognize the importance of requiring
offenders with substance abuse issues to undergo treatment, reflecting a
rehabilitative perspective (Rank 7). Overall Agreement with Punitive Measures:
The high overall weighted mean (4.29) indicates a strong agreement across
various aspects of punitive measures in the criminal justice system, underscoring
a prevailing sentiment favoring stricter approaches. This detailed presentation
and explanation provide a comprehensive understanding of respondents'

36
perceptions on the criminal justice system, shedding light on their views
regarding punishment and rehabilitation of offenders.
To support this finding, a research study was conducted by Valenzuela
(2016), highlighting the ongoing issue of delayed justice in the Philippine Criminal
Justice System and its adverse effects on public trust in government institutions.
However, public support for stringent criminal justice measures has been likened
to an insatiable craving, similar to a desire for "ice cream," with underlying
motivations yet to be fully understood (Côté-Lussier, 2016). Moreover, Côté-
Lussier's (2016) research underscores that supporting strict criminal justice
measures is often driven by emotions such as anger towards offenders, leading
to demands for harsher sentences and punitive actions.

37
Table 4. Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on the
Criminal Justice System in terms of Rehabilitation of Offenders
Indicators
Weighted
Mean
Verbal
Description
Interpretation
Rank
1. I know that rehabilitation aims to
reform the behavior and mindset of
offenders by addressing the underlying
factors that led to their criminal
behavior.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
2
2. I prefer effective rehabilitation
programs be given to provide offenders
with the tools and support needed to
avoid criminal behavior in the future.
4.36
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
4
3. I believe that effective rehabilitation
recognizes that each offender is unique,
and interventions should be tailored to
their specific needs and risks.
4.29
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
7
4. I want offenders should be provided
with education and job training as part
form part of their rehabilitation.
4.33
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
5
5. I favor the increase of funding for
rehabilitation programs in the criminal
justice system.
4.17
Agree
To a large
extent
9
6. I believe that community-based
rehabilitation programs are more
effective than institutional-based
programs.
3.96
Agree
To a large
extent
10
7. I understand that restorative justice
practices encouraged offenders to take
responsibility for their actions, make
amends to victims, and participate in
community-based programs to address
the harm caused.
4.21
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
8
8. I think involvement of family and
loved ones are essential in the
rehabilitation program of offenders.
4.31
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
6
9. I want counseling and therapy
sessions be given to offenders to
address psychological and emotional
issues.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
2
10. I am yearning for an equal access to
educational and vocational programs of
all the offenders to develop their skills
and knowledge while serving their
sentences.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
2
Overall Weighted Mean
4.27
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
Table 4 outlines the weighted mean distribution of respondents' perception
on our criminal justice system in terms of rehabilitation of offenders.

38
Understanding the Transformative Goals of Rehabilitation: Respondents show
high agreement (Rank 2) that rehabilitation aims to reform the behavior and
mindset of offenders by addressing underlying factors, indicating a clear
understanding of the transformative goals of rehabilitation.
Preference for Effective Rehabilitation Tools: There is a strong preference
(Rank 4) for effective rehabilitation programs that provide offenders with tools
and support to avoid criminal behavior in the future, emphasizing the importance
of impactful interventions. Recognition of Individualized Interventions: The
acknowledgment (Rank 7) that effective rehabilitation recognizes the uniqueness
of each offender suggests a desire for personalized and tailored interventions
based on individual needs and risks.
Role of Education and Job Training in Rehabilitation: Respondents
strongly agree (Rank 5) that education and job training should form part of
offenders' rehabilitation, emphasizing the role of skill development in the
rehabilitation process. Support for Increased Funding in Rehabilitation: While
there is agreement (Rank 9) on the need for increased funding for rehabilitation
programs, it is not the highest priority, indicating that respondents recognize
various aspects of rehabilitation beyond financial support.
Preference for Community-Based Rehabilitation Programs: The
preference (Rank 10) for community-based rehabilitation programs over
institutional-based programs suggests a desire for rehabilitation initiatives that
engage with the broader community.

39
Understanding of Restorative Justice Principles: Respondents show
understanding (Rank 8 of restorative justice practices, recognizing their positive
impact on encouraging offenders to take responsibility, make amends, and
participate in community-based programs. Acknowledgment of Family
Involvement in Rehabilitation: Strong agreement (Rank 6) on the importance of
family involvement in the rehabilitation program of offenders indicates recognition
of the supportive role families can play in the rehabilitation process.
Recognition of Counseling and Therapy in Rehabilitation: High agreement
(Rank 2) on the role of counseling and therapy sessions in addressing
psychological and emotional issues emphasizes the importance of mental health
support in rehabilitation. Strong Support for Equal Access to Educational and
Vocational Programs: The strong support (Rank 2) for equal access to
educational and vocational programs indicates a commitment to providing all
offenders with opportunities for skill development and knowledge enhancement.
Overall Comprehensive Endorsement of Rehabilitation Measures: The
high overall weighted mean (4.27) indicates a strong and comprehensive
endorsement of rehabilitation measures within the criminal justice system,
emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation alongside punitive measures.
These results provide valuable insights into the public's perceptions on
rehabilitation, highlighting the importance placed on personalized, effective, and
multifaceted approaches to support the reintegration of offenders into society.
Policymakers can utilize these findings to inform and shape rehabilitation-
focused initiatives within the criminal justice system.

40
According to Gul (2018) argues for a paradigm shift towards a more
rehabilitative approach to punishment, emphasizing the need to address
underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior. By focusing on rehabilitation,
society can not only reduce recidivism rates but also foster the transformation of
offenders into productive and law-abiding members of the community.
Table 5. Weighted Mean Distribution of the Respondents’ Perception on the
Criminal Justice System in terms of Treatment of Offenders
Indicators
Weighted
Mean
Verbal
Description
Interpretation
Rank
1. I believe that thorough assessment of
offenders should be conducted to identify their
specific needs, risks and criminogenic factors
that help in tailoring the treatment plan.
4.30
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
8.5
2. I want offenders be provided with therapeutic
interventions to address issues and other
underlying factors contributing to their criminal
behavior.
4.36
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
4
3. I prefer the provision of education and
vocational training should be prioritized to help
offenders acquire job skills, improve their
literacy, and increase their employability upon
release.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
2.5
4. I know that substance abuse treatment is
essential for offenders struggling with drug or
alcohol addiction that includes detoxification,
counseling and support groups.
4.30
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
8.5
5. I favor offenders with mental health issues be
given full treatment and support to manage their
conditions and reduce the risk of reoffending.
4.39
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
1
6. I think Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
should be often used to help offenders recognize
and change harmful thought patterns and
behaviors.
4.31
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
7
7. I believe that preparing offenders for
reintegration into society is crucial.
4.13
Agree
To a large
extent
10
8. I want offenders to actively participate in
community service or other programs that benefit
the community while providing an opportunity for
personal growth and accountability.
4.35
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
5.5
9. I believe that research and evaluation should
be conducted regularly to assess the
effectiveness of various treatment programs and
interventions, with the goal of improving
outcomes and reducing recidivism.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
2.5
10. I recognize the involvement of family and
social support systems can be essential for
successful treatment of offenders.
4.35
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent
5.5
Overall Weighted Mean
4.32
Strongly
Agree
To a very large extent

41
The weighted mean distribution of respondents' perception on our criminal
justice system in terms of treatment of offenders is presented in Table 2.3.
Recognition of Thorough Offender Assessment: Respondents express a belief
(Rank 8.5) in the necessity of a thorough assessment of offenders to tailor
treatment plans, indicating an understanding of individualized treatment needs.
Emphasis on Therapeutic Interventions: There is a strong desire (Rank 4)
for providing therapeutic interventions to address underlying issues contributing
to criminal behavior, emphasizing a holistic approach to offender treatment.
Prioritization of Education and Vocational Training: Respondents strongly prefer
(Rank 2.5) prioritizing education and vocational training for offenders, recognizing
their importance in improving literacy, job skills, and employability upon release.
Recognition of Essential Substance Abuse Treatment: There is recognition (Rank
8.5) of the essential role of substance abuse treatment, including detoxification,
counseling, and support groups, indicating an awareness of the impact of
addiction on criminal behavior.
Highest Priority for Mental Health Treatment: The highest agreement
(Rank 1) is on the provision of full treatment and support for offenders with
mental health issues, underscoring the importance placed on addressing mental
health conditions to reduce the risk of reoffending. Value of Cognitive-Behavioral
Therapy (CBT): Respondents express a belief (Rank 7) in the effectiveness of
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) in helping offenders recognizes and change
harmful thought patterns and behaviors. Importance of Preparing Offenders for
Reintegration: There is agreement (Rank 10) on the importance of preparing

42
offenders for successful reintegration into society, recognizing the need for a
comprehensive approach to offender rehabilitation. Recognition of Community
Service Benefits: Respondents strongly agree (Rank 5.5) on the value of
offenders actively participating in community service or other programs, seeing it
as an opportunity for personal growth and accountability. Emphasis on
Continuous Research and Evaluation: There is a strong emphasis (Rank 2.5) on
the need for regular research and evaluation to assess the effectiveness of
various treatment programs and interventions, indicating a commitment to
continuous improvement. Acknowledgment of Family and Social Support:
Respondents recognize (Rank 5.5) the essential role of family and social support
systems in the successful treatment of offenders, underscoring the importance of
a supportive network.
Comprehensive Agreement on Treatment Aspects: The high overall
weighted mean (4.32) indicates a comprehensive agreement on the importance
of various treatment aspects within the criminal justice system, reflecting a
holistic approach to offender rehabilitation. These results provide insights into the
public's strong endorsement of diverse and comprehensive treatment
approaches within the criminal justice system, emphasizing the need for tailored,
evidence-based interventions to address the unique needs of offenders.
Policymakers can use these findings to inform strategies that prioritize effective
treatment programs for offenders.

43
Problem 3. Is there a significant difference in the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system when grouped according to
their profile?
Table 6.Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of
punishment of offenders when grouped according to their profile
Profiles
Computed t/F
value
Critical
t/F value
p value
Decision
Conclusion
Gender
Female
1.845
2.910
0.491
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant
difference
Male
LGBTQ+
Age
Below 20 years old
2.596
3.360
0.285
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant
difference
20-29 years old
30-39 years old
40-49 years old
50-59 years old
60 years old and above
Educational Attainment
Elementary Level
1.930
0.745
0.005
Reject the null
hypothesis
There is
significant
difference
Elementary Graduate
High School Level
High School Graduate
College Level
College Graduate
Group Classification
Student
2.615
3.279
0.935
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant
difference
Parent
Teacher
Barangay Official
Police
Legend: Computed t/F value < Critical t/F value - Accept null hypothesis
Computed t/F value > Critical t/F value - Reject null hypothesis
p-value < α = 0.05, Significant
p-value > α = 0.05, Not Significant
Table 6 shows the test of significant difference on the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of punishment of offenders
when grouped according to their profile. Gender (SEX): Computed t-Value: 1.845
Critical t-Value: 2.910 p-Value: 0.491 Decision: The computed t-value is below
the critical value, and the p-value is higher than the significance level (0.05). This
leads to accepting the null hypothesis, indicating no significant difference in

44
perceptions on the punishment of offenders between genders. The sample does
not provide enough evidence to conclude a difference. Age: Computed t-Value:
2.596 Critical t-Value: 3.360 p-Value: 0.285 Decision: The computed t-value is
below the critical value, and the p-value is higher than 0.05. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is accepted, suggesting no significant difference in perceptions on
punishment of offenders based on age groups. The results indicate a consistent
view across different age groups.
Educational Attainment: Computed t-Value: 1.930 Critical t-Value: 0.745 p-
Value: 0.005 Decision: The computed t-value is higher than the critical value, and
the p-value is below 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a
significant difference in perceptions on the punishment of offenders based on
educational attainment. Respondents with different educational backgrounds
have distinct views on punishment. Group Classification: Computed t-Value:
2.615 Critical t-Value: 3.279 p-Value: 0.935 Decision: The computed t-value is
below the critical value, and the p-value is higher than 0.05. As a result, the null
hypothesis is accepted, suggesting no significant difference in perceptions on
punishment among different group classifications. Students, in this context,
exhibit similar views on the punishment of offenders.
The analysis indicates that there is no significant difference in perceptions
based on gender, age, or group classification. However, there is a notable
difference in perceptions based on educational attainment. Policymakers should
consider tailoring communication and intervention strategies based on
educational background to address diverse perspectives on the punishment of

45
offenders within the criminal justice system. These insights can contribute to
more targeted and effective public engagement initiatives.
Table 7. Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of
rehabilitation of offenders when grouped according to their
profile
Legend: Computed t/F value < Critical t/F value - Accept null hypothesis
Computed t/F value > Critical t/F value - Reject null hypothesis
p-value < α = 0.05, Significant
p-value > α = 0.05, Not Significant
Table 7 illustrates the test of significant difference on the perceptions of
the respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of rehabilitation of
offenders when grouped according to their profile. Gender (SEX): Computed t-
Value: 0.917 Critical t-Value: 1.982 p-Value: 0.695 Decision: The computed t-
Profiles
Computed
t/F value
Critical
t/F value
p value
Decision
Conclusion
Sex
Female
0.917
1. 982
0.695
Accept the null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
Male
LGBTQIA+
Age
Below 20 years old
1.655
2.169
0.538
Accept the null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
20-29 years old
30-39 years old
40-49 years old
50-59 years old
60 years old & above
Educational
Attainment
Elementary
Undergraduate
0.798
1.325
0.910
Accept the null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
Elementary Graduate
High School
Undergraduate
High School Graduate
College
Undergraduate
College Graduate
Group Classification
Student
1.630
0.872
0.040
Reject the null
hypothesis
There is significant
difference
Parent
Police
Teacher
Barangay Official

46
value is below the critical value, and the p-value is higher than the significance
level (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, indicating no significant
difference in perceptions on the rehabilitation of offenders between genders.
Age: Computed t-Value: 1.655 Critical t-Value: 2.169 p-Value: 0.538 Decision:
The computed t-value is below the critical value, and the p-value is higher than
0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted, suggesting no significant difference
in perceptions on rehabilitation of offenders based on age groups.
Educational Attainment: Computed t-Value: 0.798 Critical t-Value: 1.325 p-
Value: 0.910 Decision: The computed t-value is below the critical value, and the
p-value is higher than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, indicating
no significant difference in perceptions on the rehabilitation of offenders based on
educational attainment. Group Classification: Computed t-Value: 1.630 Critical t-
Value: 0.872 p-Value: 0.040 Decision: The computed t-value is above the critical
value, and the p-value is below 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected,
indicating a significant difference in perceptions on rehabilitation among different
group classifications. Students have diverse views on rehabilitation compared to
other groups. The analysis indicates no significant differences in perceptions
based on gender, age, or educational attainment. However, there is a significant
difference in perceptions based on group classification, specifically for students.
Policymakers should consider tailoring rehabilitation-focused initiatives to
address varied perspectives within different groups, especially among students.

47
Table 8.Test of significant difference on the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of treatment
of offenders when grouped according to their profile
Legend: Computed t/F value < Critical t/F value - Accept null hypothesis
Computed t/F value > Critical t/F value - Reject null hypothesis
p-value < α = 0.05, Significant
p-value > α = 0.05, Not Significant
Table 8 provides the test of significant difference on the perceptions of the
respondents on the criminal justice system in terms of treatment of offenders
when grouped according to their profile. Gender (SEX): Computed t-Value: 0.764
Profiles
Computed
t/F value
Critical
t/F value
p value
Decision
Conclusion
Gender
Female
0.764
2.730
0.185
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
Male
LGBTQIA+
Age
Below 20 years
old
1.526
4.730
0.980
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
20-29 years old
30-39 years old
40-49 years old
50-59 years old
60 years old &
above
Educational
Attainment
Elementary
Undergraduate
2.380
0.852
0.015
Reject the
null
hypothesis
There is significant
difference
Elementary
Graduate
High School
Undergraduate
High School
Graduate
College
Undergraduate
College Graduate
Group
Classification
Student
3.675
5.295
0.325
Accept the
null
hypothesis
There is no
significant difference
Parent
Police
Teacher
Barangay Official

48
Critical t-Value: 2.730 p-Value: 0.185 Decision: The computed t-value is below
the critical value, and the p-value is higher than the significance level (0.05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted, indicating no significant difference in
perceptions on the treatment of offenders between genders. Age: Computed t-
Value: 1.526 Critical t-Value: 4.730 p-Value: 0.980 Decision: The computed t-
value is below the critical value, and the p-value is higher than 0.05. Thus, the
null hypothesis is accepted, suggesting no significant difference in perceptions
on treatment of offenders based on age groups.
Educational Attainment: Computed t-Value: 2.380 Critical t-Value: 0.852 p-
Value: 0.015 Decision: The computed t-value is higher than the critical value, and
the p-value is below 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a
significant difference in perceptions on treatment of offenders based on
educational attainment. Group Classification: Computed t-Value: 3.675 Critical t-
Value: 5.295 p-Value: 0.325 Decision: The computed t-value is below the critical
value, and the p-value is higher than 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted,
suggesting no significant difference in perceptions on treatment among different
group classifications, specifically for students.
The analysis indicates no significant differences in perceptions based on
gender, age, or group classification. However, there is a significant difference in
perceptions based on educational attainment. Policymakers should consider
tailoring communication and intervention strategies based on educational
background to address diverse perspectives on the treatment of offenders within

49
the criminal justice system. These insights can contribute to more targeted and
effective public engagement initiatives.
Problem 4. What are the problems observed by the respondents in our
criminal justice system?
Table 9. Weighted mean distribution of the problems observed by the
respondents in our criminal justice system
Indicators
Weighted
Mean
Verbal
Description
Interpretation
Rank
1. High crime rates, including theft, robbery, and
drug-related offenses.
4.36
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
2
2. Prevalence of drug abuse and addiction issues.
4.37
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
1
3. Concerns about overcrowding in local jails and
prisons.
4.23
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
3
4. Limited access to effective offer rehabilitation
programs.
4.17
Agree
To a large
extent
6
5. Concerns about disparities in sentencing based
on socioeconomic status or other factors
4.16
Agree
To a large
extent
7
6. Insufficient community-based sentencing
alternatives.
4.05
Agree
To a large
extent
11
7. Dificulties faced by individuals in hiring
competent legal representation due to high costs.
4.10
Agree
To a large
extent
10
8. Concerns about corruption within our criminal
justice system.
3.93
Agree
To a large
extent
13
9. Delay in court cases result in prolonged
detention for individuals awaiting trial.
4.21
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
5
10. Incidents of police misconduct which erode
public trust in law enforcement and can lead to
unrest and protest.
3.78
Agree
To a large
extent
15
11. High bail amounts and pretrial detention can
disproportionately impact-low income individuals
who may remain incarcerated soley because they
cannot afford bail.
3.99
Agree
To a large
extent
12
12. The needs of crime victims, including access
to counseling and support, are not always
adequately met.
4.11
Agree
To a large
extent
9
13. Youth justice concerns that may lead to harsh
sentences.
3.88
Agree
To a large
extent
14
14. Mental health and substance abuse issues
which can result in inappropriate incarceration
rather than treatment.
4.12
Agree
To a large
extent
8
15. Inefficient procedures and outdated
technology result in long wait times for trials,
overburdened court dockets, and delays in justice.
4.22
Strongly
Agree
To a very
large extent
4
Overall Weighted Mean
4.11
Strongly
Agree
To a very large
extent

50
The Table 9 above presents the weighted mean distribution of the
problems observed by the respondents in our criminal justice. The most critical
concerns, ranked by their weighted means, include the prevalence of drug abuse
and addiction issues (Rank 1) and high crime rates encompassing theft, robbery,
and drug-related offenses (Rank 2). These indicate significant challenges that
affect public safety and law enforcement efforts.
Other notable concerns include delays in court cases leading to prolonged
detention (Rank 5), concerns about overcrowding in local jails and prisons (Rank
3), and inefficient procedures causing long wait times for trials (Rank 4). These
issues highlight systemic inefficiencies and their impacts on individuals awaiting
justice and rehabilitation.
Additionally, disparities in sentencing based on socioeconomic status or
other factors (Rank 7) and difficulties in accessing competent legal
representation due to high costs (Rank 10) underscore challenges related to
fairness and access to justice within the legal system.
Overall, the weighted mean for all indicators reflects a strongly agree (to a
very large extent) regarding the challenges faced by the criminal justice system,
emphasizing the urgent need for reforms and improvements across various
areas to ensure fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness in delivering justice and
rehabilitation services.

51
Problem 5. What action plan can be proposed based on the findings of the
study?
Table 10. Proposed Action Plan
Focus Area
Actions
Responsible Persons
Timeline
1. Drug Abuse and
Addiction
a. Strengthen substance
abuse prevention programs.
Department of Health, NGOs
Within 6
months
b. Enhance access to
rehabilitation for addicts.
Rehabilitation Centers,
Government
Within 1 year
c. Conduct public awareness
campaigns on drug risks.
Law Enforcement Agency
Within 3
months
d. Collaborate with
community support groups.
Local Government Units,
NGOs
Ongoing
2. High Crime Rates
a. Increase police presence
in high-crime areas.
National Police, Local
Authorities
Within 3
months
b. Implement community
policing initiatives.
National Police, LGUs
Within 6
months
c. Strengthen intelligence
gathering and analysis.
National Intelligence Agencies
Ongoing
3. Overcrowding
Concerns
a. Explore alternative
sentencing options.
Judiciary, Rehabilitation
Centers
Within 1 year
b. Evaluate and enhance
parole programs.
Parole Boards, Rehabilitation
Centers
Within 6
months
c. Invest in infrastructure for
additional facilities.
National Police, Local
Authorities
Within 2 years
4. Rehabilitation Programs
a. Assess and improve
existing rehabilitation
programs.
Rehabilitation Centers,
Government
Ongoing
b. Expand community-based
rehabilitation initiatives.
Local Government Units,
NGOs
Within 1 year
5. Sentencing Disparities
a. Conduct training on fair
sentencing practices.
Judiciary, Legal Training
Institutes
Within 6
months

52
Focus Area
Actions
Responsible Persons
Timeline
b. Implement regular audits
of sentencing outcomes.
Judicial Commission, NGOs
Ongoing
6. Efficiency and Delay in
Justice
a. Invest in technology for
court efficiency.
DOJ, IT Agencies
Within 1 year
b. Implement case
management systems.
Judiciary, Court Administration
Within 6
months
c. Streamline court
procedures for faster trials.
Judiciary, Legal Experts
Within 6
months
7. Victim Support
a. Enhance victim support
services and counseling.
Victim Support Organizations
Within 1 year
b. Ensure accessibility to
victim compensation funds.
DOJ, NGOs
Within 6
months
8. Community Sentencing
Alternatives
a. Develop and promote
community-based options.
Local Government Units,
NGOs
Within 1 year
b. Implement restorative
justice practices.
DOJ, NGOs
Within 6
months
9. Legal Representation
Access
a. Establish legal aid
programs for low-income
individuals.
Legal Aid Organizations,
Government
Within 1 year
b. Provide incentives for pro
bono legal services.
Bar Associations, Legal Firms
Ongoing
10. Corruption Prevention
a. Implement transparency
measures within the system.
Anti-Corruption Commission,
NGOs
Within 6
months
b. Conduct regular integrity
checks in justice agencies.
Ombudsman, Internal Affairs
Units
Ongoing
11. Police Accountability
a. Establish independent
oversight mechanisms.
Police Oversight Bodies, NGOs
Within 1 year
b. Enhance internal affairs
units for police misconduct.
Internal Affairs Units,
Government
Within 6
months
12. Bail and Pretrial
Detention
a. Review and revise bail
policies for fairness.
Judiciary, Legal Experts
Within 6
months
b. Explore alternatives to
Judiciary, Legal Experts
Within 1 year

53
Focus Area
Actions
Responsible Persons
Timeline
cash bail.
13. Youth Justice Reform
a. Develop age-appropriate
sentencing guidelines.
Judiciary, Youth Welfare
Agencies
Within 1 year
b. Promote rehabilitation
over punitive measures.
Rehabilitation Centers, NGOs
Ongoing
14. Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Issues
a. Enhance mental health
assessments in the justice
system.
DOH, DOJ
Within 6
months
b. Develop specialized
treatment programs.
Mental Health Institutions,
NGOs
Within 1 year
15. Modernizing
Technology
a. Invest in updated court
technologies.
DOJ, IT Agencies
Within 1 year
b. Provide training on new
technologies for justice
personnel.
Judiciary, IT Experts
Within 6
months
The timeline for each action item is subject to adjustment based on
feasibility, resource availability, and the complexity of implementation. Regular
monitoring and evaluation of the action plan are essential to ensure effectiveness
and adaptability to evolving circumstances.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
The study includes a diverse sample of 300 respondents, with
balanced gender representation (41% male, 58% female, 1% LGBTQIA+).
Respondents span various age groups, educational backgrounds, and group
classifications, providing a comprehensive overview of public perspectives.
The majority of respondents strongly agree that punishment should be
severe and punitive to deter potential offenders. There is strong support for
punishment as a means for society to express disapproval of wrongdoing. A
nuanced view emerges, with a significant percentage favoring alternative forms
of punishment like community service or restorative justice over incarceration.
Respondents overwhelmingly support rehabilitation, recognizing its role in
reforming the behavior and mindset of offenders. There is a preference for
effective rehabilitation programs tailored to the specific needs of each offender,
including education and job training. Community-based rehabilitation programs
are considered more effective than institutional-based programs.
Through assessment of offenders for tailoring treatment plans is deemed
crucial by respondents. Support for therapeutic interventions, education,
vocational training, and substance abuse treatment is strong. Family involvement

55
and social support systems is recognized as essential for the successful
treatment of offenders. High crime rates, drug abuse, and concerns about
overcrowding in jails are identified as significant problems. Disparities in
sentencing based on socioeconomic status and difficulties in accessing effective
rehabilitation programs are highlighted. Concerns about corruption within the
criminal justice system and incidents of police misconduct are recognized.
Overall, the study reflects a nuanced understanding of the criminal justice
system, with a strong inclination towards rehabilitation and a desire for fairness
and transparency. Public sentiments underscore the need for a holistic approach
that considers alternative punishments, individualized rehabilitation, and
comprehensive treatment programs.
Conclusions
The comprehensive exploration of public perceptions on punishment,
rehabilitation, and treatment within the criminal justice system has yielded
valuable insights into the collective mindset of diverse demographic groups. The
findings underscore a nuanced and evolving understanding of the role of the
criminal justice system in society.
The overwhelming support for rehabilitation emerges as a pivotal theme,
suggesting a societal inclination towards reformative approaches over punitive
measures. This signifies a shift in public sentiment, emphasizing the importance
of addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and fostering offender
rehabilitation. The study reveals a noteworthy preference for alternative forms of
punishment, such as community service or restorative justice, over traditional

56
incarceration. This aligns with a growing recognition that a one-size-fits-all
punitive approach may not be the most effective means of addressing criminal
behavior.
Identified concerns, including disparities in sentencing, corruption within
the criminal justice system, and incidents of police misconduct, highlight the need
for targeted reforms. Addressing these issues is crucial for building public trust
and ensuring the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system. The call for
tailored rehabilitation programs recognizing the uniqueness of each offender
reflects a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved. There is a
consensus on the significance of involving family and social support systems in
the rehabilitation process.
Thus, this study serves as a vital source of information for policymakers,
stakeholders, and the broader public. The insights gained pave the way for
informed decision-making, fostering a criminal justice system that aligns with the
values and expectations of the society it serves. As societal perspectives
continue to evolve, ongoing dialogue and responsive policy measures are
essential to ensure a justice system that is both effective and equitable.
Recommendations
In light of the comprehensive investigation of the public perceptions on our
criminal justice system, the study‟s findings reveal a spectrum of insights and
recommendations are put forth to the following stakeholders:
Academe. They should facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborations
between criminal justice experts and social scientists to continually explore public

57
perceptions and contribute to evidence-based policy recommendations, and
integrate findings from this study into academic curricula to ensure that future
criminal justice professionals are aware of evolving public sentiments.
Law Enforcers. They should provide training programs for law enforcers
to enhance their understanding of rehabilitation principles and alternative forms
of punishment, and encourage community-oriented policing practices to foster
positive relationships between law enforcers and the community, contributing to a
more rehabilitative approach.
Public Community. They should promote community education programs
to enhance public understanding of the criminal justice system, including the
complexities of punishment, rehabilitation, and treatment, and encourage
community engagement in the development and evaluation of local criminal
justice policies to ensure that public perspectives are considered.
Offenders. They should advocate for the development of rehabilitation
programs tailored to individual needs, acknowledging the uniqueness of each
offender, and emphasize the importance of involving family and social support
systems in the rehabilitation process to facilitate successful reintegration into
society.
Future Researchers. They should conduct further in-depth analyses on
specific aspects identified in this study, such as disparities in sentencing or the
effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation programs, and undertake
longitudinal studies to track changes in public perceptions over time and assess
the long-term impact of criminal justice policies.

58
By implementing these recommendations, stakeholders can contribute to
a criminal justice system that aligns with the values and expectations of the
public, fosters rehabilitation, and addresses systemic concerns. Ongoing
dialogue and collaboration are crucial for the continuous improvement of policies
and practices within the criminal justice system.

59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Online Sources
Alberto M. (2016). Prisons and rehab overcrowding in the Philippines
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2016/12/14/prisons-and-rehab-
overcrowding-in-the-philippines.
Benjamin R. (2022). Current State of Drug Rehabilitation Efforts in the
Philippines. https://mydoctorfinder.com/healthy-blogs/view-article/current-
state-of-drug-rehabilitation-efforts-in-the-philippines.
Berenji, B., Chou, T., & D'Orsogna, M. R. (2014). Recidivism and rehabilitation of
criminal offenders.
Bhat, A. (n.d.). Descriptive correlational: Descriptive vs correlational research.
QuestionPro. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/descriptive-research-vs-
correlational-research/#What_is_descriptive_correlational_research
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Taylor &
Francis.
Carlos C. (2016). Injustice and Misery in PH jails
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/08/injustice-and-misery-ph-jails
Castelino, J. A Study on Rehabilitation of Offenders: Whether it works?.
Champa P. (2017). The death penalty is an inhumane, unlawful and ineffective
response to drug https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-
release/2017/03/philippines-the-death-penalty-is-an-inhumane-unlawful-
and-ineffective-response-to-drugs/
Côté-Lussier, C. (2016). The functional relation between social inequality,
criminal stereotypes, and public attitudes toward punishment of crime.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 46.
Erik D.C. (2016). Drug Rehabilitation in the Philippines.
https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/drug-rehabilitation-in-the-philippines
Escabel, E. B., Abliter, P. J. M., Asi, R. G., Dimaano, R. D., Villavicencio, R. A., &
Seco, A. M. G. (2015). Effectiveness of therapeutic community modality
program implemented in Batangas City Jail, Philippines. European
Journal of Research in Social Sciences Vol, 3(4).
Gideon L. & Lee (2020). The Politics of Drug Rehabilitation in the Philippines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9212821/#:~:text=In%20th
e%20Philippines%2C%20people%20are,lesser%20penalty%2C%20whic
h%20includes%20rehabilitation

60
Glendinning, A. L., & O'Keeffe, C. (2015). Attitudes towards offenders with
mental health problems scale. The Journal of Mental Health Training,
Education and Practice, 10(2), 73-84.
Grolleau, G., Mungan, M. C., & Mzoughi, N. (2022). Letting offenders choose
their punishment?. Kyklos, 75(4), 607-617.
Gul, R. (2018). Our Prisons Punitive or Rehabilitative? An Analysis of Theory and
Practice. Policy Perspectives, 15(3), 67–83.
https://doi.org/10.13169/polipers.15.3.0067
Johnson, D. T., & Fernquest, J. (2018). Governing through killing: The war on
drugs in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 5(2), 359-390.
Jones, A. C., & Neal, T. M. (2019). A call for research on sex offender treatment
programs. International journal of offender therapy and comparative
criminology, 63(1), 77-85.
Justice, B., & Meares, T. L. (2014). How the criminal justice system educates
citizens. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 651(1), 159-177.
Kusada, J. R. (2014). The perceptions and experiences of male offenders
regarding social and rehabilitation services at Chikurumbi Farm Prison in
Zimbabwe (Master's thesis, University of Cape Town).
Meena, N. (2018). CORRECTIONAL METHODS FOR REHABILITATION OF
OFFENDERS IN INDIA.
Morani, N. M., Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Bratton, S. (2011). A description of
the self-identified needs, service expenditures, and social outcomes of
participants of a prisoner-reentry program. The Prison Journal, 91(3),
347-365.
Murhula, P. B. B., Singh, S. B., & Nunlall, R. (2019). A critical analysis on
offenders rehabilitation approach in South Africa: A review of the
literature. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS,
12(1), 21-43.
Narag, R. E. (2019). Exploring the consequences of prolonged pretrial
incarceration: Evidence from a local jurisdiction in the Philippines.
International journal of comparative and applied criminal justice, 43(2),
117-134.
Ngozwana, N. (2017). Adult offenders' perceptions of rehabilitation programs in
Africa. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 57(2), 217-241.
Polaschek, D. L., Yesberg, J. A., Bell, R. K., Casey, A. R., & Dickson, S. R.
(2016). Intensive psychological treatment of high-risk violent offenders:

61
Outcomes and pre-release mechanisms. Psychology, Crime & Law,
22(4), 344-365.
Schinkel, M. (2014). Punishment as moral communication: The experiences of
long-term prisoners. Punishment & Society, 16(5), 578-597.
Schwaeble, K. L., & Sundt, J. (2020). Attitudes and Public Opinion About
Punishment. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and
Criminal Justice.
Smeallie, A. N. (2018). Punishing the Punisher: The Role of the International
Criminal Court in Ending Duterte's War on Drugs. Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ,
33, 173.
Tanu Priya (2014) Castelino, J. A Study on Rehabilitation of Offenders: Whether
it works?.
Tariq, A. (2020). Reintegration prospects for the ex-convicts in Pakistan: A legal
perspective. Policy Perspectives.
Teddy B. (2020), lawmakers rally against death penalty
https://aseanmp.org/2020/11/09/lawmakers-rally-against-death-penalty-
philippines/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAt%20the%20most%20basic%20level,
said%20Ifugao%20Representative%20Teddy%20Baguilat.
Tonry, M. (2019). Is Proportionality in Punishment Possible, and Achievable?. Of
One-eyed and Toothless Miscreants: Making the Punishment Fit the
Crime?, 1.
Valenzuela, R. P. (2016). Glimmers of hope: A report on the Philippine Criminal
Justice System. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(903), 845-849.
Van Ginneken, E. F., & Hayes, D. (2017). „Just‟punishment? Offenders‟ views on
the meaning and severity of punishment. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
17(1), 62-78.
Vidit (2017 Castelino, J. A Study on Rehabilitation of Offenders: Whether it
works?.
Walkden, S. M., Rogerson, M., & Kola-Palmer, D. (2021). Public attitudes
towards offenders with mental illness scale (patomi): Establishing a valid
tool to measure public perceptions. Community Mental Health Journal,
57, 349-356.
Wood, J., & Viki, G. T. (2013). Public perceptions of crime and punishment. In
Forensic psychology (pp. 34-54). Willan.
Yangco, C. C. (2019). Community-based treatment for offenders in the
Philippines: old concepts, new approaches, best practices. RESOURCE
MATERIAL SERIES No. 54, 283.

62
Yesberg, J. A., & Polaschek, D. L. (2019). How does offender rehabilitation
actually work? Exploring mechanisms of change in high-risk treated
parolees. International journal of offender therapy and comparative
criminology, 63(15-16), 2672-2692.
britannica.com/topic/punishment
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)
https://ndvlaw.com/penalties-in-criminal-laws-philippines/
https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9885916116740669440090022021/original/
JusticeSystem.pdf
https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/main/prevention-information/35
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-justice
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/criminological-treatment
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/criminological-treatment
https://www.penalreform.org/resource/belarusian-public-opinion-crime-
punishment-including-death-penalty/
igi-global.com/dictionary/soft-or-hard-power-in-diplomacy/114293

63
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION LETTER FOR BARANGAY CAPTAIN

64

65

66

67
Permission Letter for City Director

68
APPENDIX B
PERMISSION LETTER FOR CITY DIRECTOR

69

70
APPENDIX C
CONSENT FORM

71
APPENDIX D
RESEARCH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ON PUNISHMENT, REHABILITATION AND
TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Part I. Profile of the Respondent
1. GENDER ( ) Female
( ) Male
( ) LGBTQ+
2. AGE ( ) below 20 years old
( ) 20-29 years old
( ) 30-39 years old
( ) 40-49 years old
( ) 50-59 years old
( ) 60 years old and above
3. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT ( ) Elementary Level
( ) Elementary Graduate
( ) High School Level
( ) High School Graduate
( ) College Level
( ) College Graduate
4. GROUP CLASSIFICATION ( ) Student
( ) Parent
( ) Teacher
( ) Barangay Official
( ) Police

72
Part II. Perceptions on the Criminal Justice System
Scale: 5 - Strongly Agree (SA)
4 - Agree (AG)
3 - Undecided (UD)
2 - Disagree (DA)
1 - Strongly Disagree (SD)
A. Punishment of Offenders
Indicators
SA
(5)
AG
(4)
UD
(3)
DA
(2)
SD
(1)
1. I believe that punishment should be severe and punitive
to deter potential offenders.
2. I understand that punishment is a way to send a strong
message that criminal behavior will not be tolerated.
3. I know that offenders should receive punishments that
are proportional to the harm they have caused.
4. I see punishment as a way for society to express
disapproval of wrongdoing.
5. I want alternative forms of punishment like community
service or restorative justice be considered than
incarceration.
6. I am in favor of requiring offenders to pay monetary
fines as a form of punishment.
7. I believe that death penalty is the best punishment for
the most serious crimes as a means of protecting society
from potential harm.
8. I want the criminal justice system to invest more in
prevention and early intervention programs to reduce
crime and recidivism.
9. I believe that harsher punishments such as longer
prison sentences are necessary to reduce crime.
10. I prefer offenders with substance abuse issues may be
required to undergo drug or alcohol treatment as part of
their punishment.

73
B. Rehabilitation of Offenders
Indicators
SA
(5)
AG
(4)
UD
(3)
DA
(2)
SD
(1)
1. I know that rehabilitation aims to reform the behavior
and mindset of offenders by addressing the underlying
factors that led to their criminal behavior.
2. I prefer effective rehabilitation programs be given to
provide offenders with the tools and support needed to
avoid criminal behavior in the future.
3. I believe that effective rehabilitation recognizes that
each offender is unique, and interventions should be
tailored to their specific needs and risks.
4. I want offenders should be provided with education and
job training as part form part of their rehabilitation.
5. I favor the increase of funding for rehabilitation
programs in the criminal justice system.
6. I believe that community-based rehabilitation programs
are more effective than institutional-based programs.
7. I understand that restorative justice practices
encouraged offenders to take responsibility for their
actions, make amends to victims, and participate in
community-based programs to address the harm caused.
8. I think involvement of family and loved ones are
essential in the rehabilitation program of offenders.
9. I want counseling and therapy sessions be given to
offenders to address psychological and emotional issues.
10. I am yearning for an equal access to educational and
vocational programs of all the offenders to develop their
skills and knowledge while serving their sentences.

74
C. Treatment of Offenders
Indicators
SA
(5)
AG
(4)
UD
(3)
DA
(2)
SD
(1)
1. I believe that thorough assessment of offenders should
be conducted to identify their specific needs, risks and
criminogenic factors that help in tailoring the treatment
plan.
2. I want offenders be provided with therapeutic
interventions to address issues and other underlying
factors contributing to their criminal behavior.
3. I prefer the provision of education and vocational
training should be prioritized to help offenders acquire job
skills, improve their literacy, and increase their
employability upon release.
4. I know that substance abuse treatment is essential for
offenders struggling with drug or alcohol addiction that
includes detoxification, counseling and support groups.
5. I favor offenders with mental health issues be given full
treatment and support to manage their conditions and
reduce the risk of reoffending.
6. I think Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) should be
often used to help offenders recognize and change
harmful thought patterns and behaviors.
7. I believe that preparing offenders for reintegration into
society is crucial.
8. I want offenders to actively participate in community
service or other programs that benefit the community
while providing an opportunity for personal growth and
accountability.
9. I believe that research and evaluation should be
conducted regularly to assess the effectiveness of various
treatment programs and interventions, with the goal of
improving outcomes and reducing recidivism.
10. I recognize the involvement of family and social
support systems can be essential for successful treatment
of offenders.

75
Part III. Problems observed in the Criminal Justice System
Scale: 5 - Strongly Agree (SA)
4 - Agree (AG)
3 - Undecided (UD)
2 - Disagree (DA)
1 - Strongly Disagree (SD)
Indicators
SA
(5)
AG
(4)
UD
(3)
DA
(2)
SD
(1)
1. High crime rates, including theft, robbery, and drug-
related offenses.
2. Prevalence of drug abuse and addiction issues.
3. Concerns about overcrowding in local jails and prisons.
4. Limited access to effective offer rehabilitation programs.
5. Concerns about disparities in sentencing based on
socioeconomic status or other factors
6. Insufficient community-based sentencing alternatives.
7. Dificulties faced by individuals in hiring competent legal
representation due to high costs.
8. Concerns about corruption within our criminal justice
system.
9. Delay in court cases result in prolonged detention for
individuals awaiting trial.
10. Incidents of police misconduct which erode public trust
in law enforcement and can lead to unrest and protest.
11. High bail amounts and pretrial detention can
disproportionately impact-low income individuals who may
remain incarcerated soley because they cannot afford bail.
12. The needs of crime victims, including access to
counseling and support, are not always adequately met.
13. Youth justice concerns that may lead to harsh
sentences.
14. Mental health and substance abuse issues which can
result in inappropriate incarceration rather than treatment.
15. Inefficient procedures and outdated technology result
in long wait times for trials, overburdened court dockets,
and delays in justice.

76
DOCUMENTATIONS

77
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : John Paul B. Orcerada
Address : Prk. 1 Mangga, Tubod, Iligan City
Mobile : 09552741027
Email : orcerada.johnpaul@icc.edu.ph
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth : November 18, 2000
Gender : Male
Place of Birth : Tubod, Iligan City
Citizenship : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Mother‟s Name : Nida B. Orcerada
Father‟s Name : Judy O. Orcerada
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
Tertiary Level : Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Iligan Capitol College
2023-2024
Senior High School : Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL)
Iligan Computer Institute
2018-2019
Junior High School : Iligan City National High School
2016-2017
Primary Level : Tubod Elementary School
2012-2013

78
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Badron B. Dowa
Address : Poblacion Magsaysay, LDN
Mobile : 093849554127
Email : badron.dowa@icc.edu.ph
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth : December 05, 2001
Gender : Male
Place of Birth : Baroy, Lanao del Norte
Citizenship : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Mother‟s Name : Zoraida O. Buwanding
Father‟s Name : Mama M. Dowa
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
Tertiary Level : Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Iligan Capitol College
2023-2024
Senior High School : General Academic Strand (GAS)
Linamon National High School
2019-2020
Junior High School : Linamon National High School
2017-2018
Primary Level : Magsaysay Central Elementary School
2013-2014

79
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Simbanatao Jr. M. Pandapatan
Address : Cabasagan Pantao Ragat, LDN
Mobile : 09639882920
Email : pandapatan.simbanatao@icc.edu.ph
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth : August 14, 2001
Gender : Male
Place of Birth : Mercy Hospital
Citizenship : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Mother‟s Name : Mariam L. Mangotara
Father‟s Name : Simbanatao S. Pandapatan
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
Tertiary Level : Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Iligan Capitol College
2023-2024
Senior High School : Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS)
Iligan Capitol College
2019-2020
Junior High School : Calawe Pantao Ragat Agro Industrial Highschool
2017-2018
Primary Level : Banday Elementary School
2013-2014

80
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Angel Jane E. Atay
Address : Pualas Tubod, Lanao del Norte
Mobile : 09126409125
Email : atay.angeljane@icc.edu.ph
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth : July 23, 2002
Gender : Female
Place of Birth : Pualas Tubod, Lano del Norte
Citizenship : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Mother‟s Name : Shirley C. Erojo
Father‟s Name : Dominador D. Atay
EDUCATION ATTAINMENT
Tertiary Level : Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Iligan Capitol College
2023-2024
Senior High School : Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL)
Teofila C. Quibranza National High School
2019-2020
Junior High School : Teofila C. Quibranza National High School
2017-2018
Primary Level : Pedro C. Buca Central Elementary School
2013-2014