NCJ Number
81192
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 72 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1981) Pages: 1699-1734
Date Published
1981
Length
36 pages
Annotation
A discussion of rehabilitation theories and correctional evaluations emphasizes that rehabilitation is an objective that prisons cannot deliver and then outlines a model for reform in which humanity, fairness, and efficiency are the criteria of satisfactory performance.
Abstract
Contrary to popular belief, retributivism has always determined the actual administration of criminal justice, and the rehabilitative ideal has had little effect on correctional practices. A brief history of rehabilitation theories covers the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, 19th-century reformers in the United States, the evolution of the penitentiary and reformatory, and pioneer longitudinal studies on ex-offenders. The efforts of Richard McGee as director of the California Department of Corrections between 1944 and 1961 to root out corruption, eliminate incompetence, and foster efficient administration are reviewed for the purpose of illuminating reasons why faith in rehabilitation declined among policymakers, practitioners, and the academic public. Under McGee, several management innovations were implemented to cope with substantial increases in prison commitments, including a series of parole experiments. Evaluations using recidivism as the dependent variable examined the impact of weekly group counseling, financial assistance, small caseloads, and substantial reductions in time served on parolees' behavior. One study established that substancial reductions in time served did not increase recidivism, while a rigorously designed evaluation of group counseling at a new prison failed to prove that such counseling effected recidivism. In retrospect, these evaluations were probably premature, and the effort should have been directed toward established programs such as education or vocational training. Based on the sole criteria of recidivism, most correctional evaluations have followed a similar pattern and failed to determine what programs work or do not and why. The recidivism measure does not identify the offender's goals, does not reflect problems faced by ex-offenders in the real world, and works against understanding. More effective research could be accomplished by a control group design in a correctional setting. To reduce hostilities between society and convicts, a just sense of community in prison must be created. Experimental programs in California and North Carolina are engaged in establishing such communities through increased freedom-of-choice, improved communication, and building bridges to the outside community. The lost ideal of rehabilitation must be replaced with the theory that citizens in prison with realistic hopes for a better future must be able to choose the steps that will get them there. Approximately 50 footnotes are provided.