Punishment as Opportunity: Rehabilitative Justice and Spiritual Exclusion

In contemporary understanding, punishment ceases to be merely an act of retribution and takes on a new depth as an instrument for moral healing. Here, the decisive factor is not simply depriving the future criminal of their prospects, but rather creating conditions for their reeducation and inner transformation. Even in cases where some experts are convinced of the inevitability of criminal inclinations in certain individuals, the discussion continues: no one can say in advance with certainty whether a person is irreformable. This is precisely why an approach that offers everyone a chance for moral renewal, rather than excluding them from the possibility of change, is required.

Meanwhile, in religious traditions the attitude toward certain acts, such as betrayal, can be radically different. Those who have completely lost connection with spiritual values and renounced the community face more severe measures, emphasizing the variety of approaches to punishment depending on the nature of the offense.

Thus, the modern discussion on punishment brings to the forefront not the punishment itself but the process of recovery and reeducation, leaving room for redemption even for the gravest mistakes, provided that circumstances allow for a reevaluation of life’s priorities.
Do all criminals and traitors receive the punishment they deserve, or are there exceptions in this regard from a moral and religious standpoint?

According to the authors described, the punishment of a criminal is not seen as a simple act of retribution or revenge, but rather primarily as an opportunity for moral healing and correction. The idea is not to unconditionally deprive the offender of any future, but to establish conditions conducive to their reformation. As noted in one of the cited statements, "By the true concept of punishment, its positive task with respect to the criminal is not his physical torment, but moral healing or correction. This idea... provokes strong objections..." (source: link ). It is stressed here that the real goal of punishment should lie in moral influence, not in pursuing harsh retribution.

Furthermore, even if some hold the opinion that certain criminals (for instance, those with hereditary or innate inclinations) cannot be reformed at all, another author argues: "The objection of anthropologists consists in asserting that criminal inclinations are inborn and therefore irreformable... but if one is allowed only to assume that some criminals are irreformable, then no one has the opportunity or the right to say in advance with certainty whether a given criminal belongs to that few, and therefore everyone should be placed in conditions most favorable for possible reformation." (source: link ). In other words, even when there is doubt about a criminal’s capacity for reform, it is not acceptable to decide in advance that they deserve nothing more than punishment without a chance for change.

As for traitors, the religious context involves harsher norms. For example, the rule of Saint Gregory the Miracle-Worker states that those who have completely lost their identity and committed betrayal must be excluded from the ranks of the listeners – "...such ones must be cast out and excluded from the congregation..." (source: link ). Here, exclusion from the community based on a complete loss of loyalty and spiritual values implies a different approach to handling such acts.

Thus, from both moral and religious perspectives, not all criminals and traitors receive the same (and often severe) retribution. The emphasis is on the possibility of correction and healing through the creation of optimal conditions for reeducation, even if some hold views that certain individuals are irreformable. At the same time, in cases of betrayal—especially when equated with a complete renunciation of shared spiritual values—exceptional measures may be applied, as determined by religious prescriptions.