In today’s world, there are many discussions on rehabilitating people when they are radicalised or commit crimes. It led me to a question on what are the steps that one usually has to go through before rehabilitation is possible. I landed at two words, ‘Correction’ and ‘Conviction’.
Before we get started let’s explore what each of these words mean:
Corrections: Change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy or the action or process of correcting something.
Conviction: A formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence or a firmly held belief or opinion.
From the simplified definitions (thank you Google!) we can perceive the difference between the words. Correction is more of an external manifestation on making amends to ensure better performance or in some cases acceptable behaviour.
Correction is important in helping us learn, grow and improve across our personal and professional lives. In a way, when one accepts correction, it may lead to increase self-worth and confidence, because it’s a reminder that no one is perfect.
Conviction on the other hand, is more intrinsic. It provides internal strength to pursue our goals, overcome obstacles and maintain congruence in thought and action. Leading to greater personal growth and even building resilience. Strong convictions help to inspire trust in others, strengthen decision making and foster a sense of purpose and passion. It makes setbacks and obstacles no matter how daunting seem small when one is convicted in their belief or action.
When I was writing this I realised that one is clearly more powerful than the other. If you are corrected or chastised, you may not always be convicted of your actions or behaviour. But if you are convicted on something, it comes hand in hand with being chastised or corrected which then shapes how you continue to journey through life.
So where does this difference show up most clearly? I’ve noticed it in two very different groups: children and criminals. Both are often corrected, but the presence—or absence—of conviction makes all the difference.
Children and Criminals: What is the difference?
I know the header seems abit jarring but bear with me.
Many of my close friends and family work with children. I always found it curious when I would see them correcting a child, it usually goes with (a) Shout or yelling to get their attention, (b) being pulled aside, (c) telling the child what they did was wrong and sometimes if you are lucky (d) Why it was wrong. Many times, as adults we stop at telling children ‘what’ but rarely go beyond to ‘why’.
Maybe its because we assume that a young child would not understand the why, so we don’t bother telling them that till they’re older.
But when will a child be old enough?
The question I have lies more with the adults, why do we stop and not explain to children why their behaviour is bad, disruptive, rude (any of the above). While yes, I do think we should pick our battles, for a young child even putting out the ‘why’ makes a difference because it’s planting seeds into their minds and can make changes to their behaviour.
Many times, as adults we get upset when we receive an apology that does not put into words ‘why’ we are receiving it.
Case in point, pick which one you prefer:
‘I’m sorry for saying that, please forgive me’
vs
‘I’m sorry for calling you that. It was hurtful and childish thing to do. I was being rude and inconsiderate for even using that term, I will do better, please forgive me’.
The difference in an apology is the understanding of why. It is not simply the word ‘sorry’ that makes the difference.
If as adults many of us struggle with accepting such apologies or lack of reasoning, why are we leaving children unequipped.
Now for criminals we have the opposite problem.
Many times, they are aware of social norms and rules on criminal activities. In a courtroom their crimes are detailed and explained to the jury or the judge and it is always presented with a motive (the why) in the courtroom.
Playing devil advocate to myself, if the ‘why’ is needed—this is the perfect scenario— why are there repeat offenders occur. Its confusing especially when the consequences have been outlined and experienced.
I like to think that despite the judge or jury passing a conviction, internally the person isn’t convicted. Ever heard the saying ‘you can bring the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’. Well, this is the same.
The beauty of conviction is that it is a double-edged sword. It is more effective than correction only when it is from within. Which means if I choose to justify my behaviour due to other external factors rather than accept that I had to power to choose my decision despite the circumstance, I will never be convicted.
I can be corrected by people, I can explain and justify my actions, but I won’t be able to see the hurt or pain it caused, and neither will I be willing to accept that I became a perpetrator unless I am convicted.
How do we continue evolving
I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation to slowly peel yourself open to the possibility that there are a lot of things in life that makes you a cog in the machine and the same way the cog does not understand why you just go through the motions.
But maybe the question isn’t which is more powerful, but how we can move from correction to conviction in our own lives. The next time we are corrected—whether as children, adults, or even in the quiet courtroom of our conscience—what if we paused long enough to ask: Do I just understand what I did wrong, or am I convicted enough to live differently?
The answer may determine whether the lesson ends there.
ArrowsInk 
Share your thoughts