The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal:
Respond with 150 words and 2 references with 1 being the textbook, biblical reference
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Correctional theory: Context and consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN: 9781506306520.
*Alton*
Francis Allen (1981) defines rehabilitation as the notion that a primary purpose of penal treatment is to effect changes in the characters, attitudes, and behavior of convicted offenders, so as it strengthens the social defense against unwanted behavior, but also contribute to the welfare and satisfaction of others. Cullen and Jonson (2011) defined rehabilitation as a planned correctional intervention that targets for change internal and social criminogenic factors to reduce recidivism and, where possible, of improving other aspects of an offender’s life. Rehabilitation is a utilitarian goal of the criminal sanction because its utility and benefits justify it. It does not seek to achieve justice for justice’s own sake but also wishes to produce social good in terms of improving the offender, reducing recidivism, and increasing public safety (Cullen & Jonson, 2017).
The goal of rehabilitation in the correctional setting is to provide services to offenders that improve their lives. It is also the only correctional theory that uses the medical model and individual treatment. It implies that through science, there can be a diagnosis of what is wrong with the offender, and then prescriptions of correctional medicine can be given to cure the underlying ailment. One of the reasons why rehabilitation is not widely used is because of the argument of abuse of discretion. Conservatives believed that discretion would lead to criminal roaming free committing more crimes, and liberals believed that discretion would lead to offenders that were poor and of different color being faced with discrimination when it comes to sentencing. This argument led to liberal embracing just deserts and conservatives embracing “get tough” policies.
Some barriers prevent early intervention programs from being more widely used. Punishment-oriented programs like “scared straight” are not as effective as they have no impact or a slight criminogenic effect. Character-building programs such as “boot camp” that break a person down to rebuild them appear not to be effective. Programs that focus on boosting self-esteem have been proven to build confident criminals. Client-centered, non-direct counseling allows inmates to set the agenda and is not structures systematically to change antisocial values and ways of thinking. These counseling sessions are too poorly focused on changing the factors central to recidivism. 1 Corinthians 4:5 says, “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God” (New International Version). When it comes to rehabilitation in the correctional setting, there is no need for criticism and judgment. The goal is to get offenders away from their wicked ways. They are already punished for their actions. Rehabilitation looks to return individuals to loving, God-fearing citizens.
References
Allen, F. A. (1981). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2011). Rehabilitation and Treatment. Crime and Policy, 293-344.
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Correctional Theory: Context and Consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
