Crime, Policy & Rehabilitation

Allen Tuazon

Executive Summary

The Sate of Ohio is seeking to reduce crime and recidivism. In addressing this goal, policymakers have a duty to select the most effective correctional philosophy. Ultimately, this decision must be rooted in the hard facts of research evidence. Among the five approaches proposed – retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, restorative justice, and rehabilitation – only rehabilitation has shown definitive and demonstrable promise in the systematic reduction of crime. Following a specific set of programmatic principles in implementing rehabilitative treatments will allow the state to ensure effective delivery, thus guaranteeing a decline in recidivism and crime in general. Such an approach would be approved by the public.

Introduction

Escalating costs and rising prison populations are forcing the state to streamline its

correctional responses. Beyond fiscal considerations, the goal of crime reduction demands that

society choose the appropriate correctional strategy. Five prevalent organizing philosophies are

being considered: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence; restorative justice; and rehabilitation.

Only the last option, however, holds hope for reducing crime. This position paper will briefly

survey each philosophy, compare and contrast each using criminal propensity and opportunity as

a context, discuss the positive and negative aspects of each approach, focusing on research

findings, and, conclusively, describe why rehabilitation should be accepted by the state as its

primary organizational framework.

Retribution

When discussing a range of options, it is sometimes useful to begin and end with

diametrical extremes. Retribution theory, located at the far right edge of correctional philosophy,

conceives of the criminal justice system’s responsibilities as exclusively punitive – that is,

2

offenders deserve only to have the exact social disruption caused by their crimes reflexively

applied to their own lives. Naturally, this perspective implicitly and wholly rejects

rehabilitation; in some sense, it also represents a reversion to a previous set of penal values

(Foucault 1977). Because retribution theory has a null view of the future, its philosophical core

is free from the opportunity/propensity dichotomy (Cullen et al. 2002, p. 30); it is justice-

centered, not offender-centered.

Considering the prevailing correctional paradigm of the modern world, it is

understandable that very little research data exists judging the effects of an exclusively

retributive system on recidivism. Some retributive policies are favored by the public (Cullen et

al. 2000, p. 10), and the goal of justice is important to corrections (Cullen & Gilbert 1982, p.

127). The philosophy of retribution, by definition, however, does not concern itself with the

reduction of future crime. As such, this philosophy, existing so far out of the reach of the

public’s and state’s goals for corrections (Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 136; Cullen et al. 2000, p. 57),

should only be accepted – if it is accepted at all – as a secondary influence in the state’s

approach.

Incapacitation

In order for a criminal act to occur, both criminal propensity and opportunity must

intersect in history (Cullen et al. 2002, p. 30). The strategy of incapacitation focuses exclusively

on criminal opportunity: by isolating offenders from the community (in prisons, through

intensive supervision, or, at its extreme, through capital punishment), propensity becomes

essentially irrelevant. There are two schools of incapacitation: selective and collective.

3

Selective incapacitation involves detaining only those criminals who are chronic re-

offenders or who have a high risk of re-offending (Visher 1987, p. 514). Studies by Wolfgang et

al. (1972) and Shannon et al. (1988) made clear that a small percentage of offenders (i.e., the

group of “career criminals”) is responsible for the majority of crimes (Walker 2006, p. 68); this

group detained, crime as a whole would decline appreciably (Visher 1987, p. 514) . While this

approach has been shown to have definite effectiveness (MacKenzie 2000, p. 464), it remains

difficult to determine which offenders are and will become career criminals. This prediction

problem (Walker 2006, p. 73; Petersilia 1993, p. 28) continues to be an obstacle that inflates

costs while depressing the potential effect size (Sherman et al. 1997, p. 9.10). Likewise,

collective incapacitation involves imprisonment of every offender based on offense-based

sentencing (e.g., mandatory minimum sentencing); as Visher (1987) notes, however, this strategy

will only “have an incapacitative effect as long as the imprisoned offenders would have been

committing crimes if they were free” (p. 515) – with only a small percentage of offenders

committing the majority of offenses, collective incapacitation is obviously inefficient and costly.

Incapacitation has been studied extensively. Despite this diversity, and despite a few

supporters (Visher 1987, Reynolds 1996), for the most part research findings have been strangely

ambiguous in every regard: prisons (Sherman 1997, p. 9.12; DiIulio & Piehl 1991, p. 35;

Spelman 2000; Petersilia 1993, p. 25-27; Lynch 1999) and intensive supervision (Martinson

1974, p. 46; Cullen et al., 1996, p. 87; Petersilia & Turner 1993, p. 332) show no discernable

effect on recidivism (Gendreau et al. 2000; Petersilia & Turner 1993).

Shockingly, imprisonment can even promote re-offending among low- and medium-risk

populations (Bonta 1996). For the majority of the American public, prison remains a

philosophical abstract; ignorance persists of the grim realities of prison life. The fact is,

4

however, that prisons are terrible places. The punishment and suffering of offenders is not

limited to deprivation of liberty; convicts also are exposed to rape, brutality, and a culture of

offending that, most importantly, is instrumental in causing recidivism (Latessa 2003, p. 103).

Indeed, the phenomenon of prisonization is the most troubling of incarceration’s consequences:

the “inherently corrupting” atmosphere of each prison can utterly degrade even the best human

beings (Cullen & Gilbert 1982, p. 117-118), with interacting inmates mutually reinforcing the

very antisocial attitudes that are highly correlated to re-offending (Redl & Toch 1979, p. 190;

Van Voorhis 2004, p. 136). While incapacitation cannot be wholly rejected as a correctional

option, it would be impossible to endorse incapacitation as a primary guiding theory based on the

research evidence.

Deterrence

The philosophy of deterrence advocates creating penalties so severe that potential

criminals will consciously choose against committing crime in every circumstance; in this, it is

strongly linked to rational choice theory (Cullen et al. 2002, p. 30; Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 279)

and to market economics (Reynolds 1996, p. 10). Each citizen has some concept of the suffering

implicit in a prison sentence; rationally, one would wish to avoid prison, a dire, “frightening,

humiliating, and demoralizing” experience (Van Voorhis 2004, p. 101) described above in the

section on Incapacitation. In the context of severe sanctions, the price of crime rises and the

benefits of offending decline, thus disqualifying criminality as a profitable mode of life and

diminishing criminal propensity (Sherman 1997, p. 9.13). The deterrent strategy includes the

tactics of incarceration, capital punishment, fines, and boot camps (shock incarceration).

5

Nagin (1998) asserts that “the collective actions of the criminal justice system exert a

very substantial deterrent effect” (p. 3); this is made obvious by the fact that the majority of

individuals in society are not criminals (Walker 2006, p. 110). Yet, the issue is not the deterrent

effect of corrections at large, however, but rather of specific deterrent programs (Walker 2006, p.

110; Nagin 1998, p. 3). Unfortunately, deterrence research is methodologically challenging and

suffers from categorical gaps in knowledge (Nagin 1998). Because of the unclear and

unsatisfactory nature of this research (Lynch 1999, p. 359; Reynolds 1996, p. 26), deterrence

remains hotly contested and controversial: research evidence has only vague answers to

questions about the effectiveness of deterrence (Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 290). While fines

appear promising, a limited corpus of research prevents a definitive evaluation (Sherman 1997,

p. 9.15); the deterrent effects of incarceration are not well attested (Gendreau et al. 2000) and

may even be lessening over time (Petersilia 1993, p. 29; Walker 2006, p. 15-16). Capital

punishment’s relationship to crime, and its deterrent power, remain in question (Walker 2006, p.

118). On shock incarceration and boot camps, researchers concur: boot camps are, in Latessa’s

(2003) dry estimation, “not positive” (p. 361), with some studies finding a highly significant

increase in recidivism for boot camp participants – at best, research in this area is inconclusive

(Sherman 1997, p. 9.16, 9.33; Walker 2006, p. 233; Cullen et al. 1996, p. 110-112; MacKenzie

2000, p. 466).

Beyond the general effected noted by Nagin (1998), research has not confirmed which

sanctions exert a deterrent effect. In conclusion, because of the unconvincing nature of the

research evidence, deterrence can only serve as a secondary guiding principle for the state

correctional system.

6

Restorative Justice

Restorative Justice is a relatively new movement within criminology which, like

retribution theory, has a justice-centered – versus an offender-centered – view of corrections and

the correctional process. Yet, though some view the Restorative Justice movement as

progressive, its theoretical elements have been present in society since prehistoric times. Walker

(2006) points out that similar practices have been used in Native American and indigenous

cultures, as well as in colonial America (p. 313; Cullen & Gilbert 1982, p. 47, 49).

Because of its novelty, there is only a minimal base of evidence on which to judge

restorative justice’s potential as a correctional approach. While attractive on many different

levels (Levrant et al. 1999, p. 4; Cullen et al. 2000, p. 47), the theory seems overburdened by a

histrionic, agrarian vision of what justice is – and, at times, description of the restorative course

degenerates into scenes worthy of late-afternoon television (cf. “Imagine Two Robbers,”

Braithwaite 1998, p. 326-328). Beyond this, evidence-based corrections emphasizes the

treatment of specific, proven crimogenic factors such as antisocial attitudes and associates (Van

Voorhis 2004, p. 136; Smith et al. 2004, p. 287-288); these considerations notwithstanding,

restorative justice targets such abstract concepts as dignity, sense of empowerment, and harmony

(Braithwaite 1998, p. 328). Some may view such an approach as, in a partial sense,

“correctional quackery” (Latessa et al. 2002, p. 43). Ultimately, while restorative justice may

succeed at promoting pleasant feelings and mutual satisfaction (Braithwaite 2002), definitive

analysis in terms of recidivism is forthcoming – currently, evidence is ambiguous at best

(Braithwaite 2002, p. 56; Latessa 2003, p. 268-269), and feelings are not overly positive (Levrant

et al. 1999; Walker 2006, p. 312). Until such time as more evidence becomes available,

7

Restorative Justice should be maintained only as a secondary influence in guiding state

correctional policy.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is treatment, often referred to as an “intervention,” which seeks to change

the offender’s personality, psyche, or characteristics in order to prevent him from engaging in

future criminal behavior (Sherman 1997, p. 9.1). In this sense, rehabilitation focuses on criminal

propensity. The history of rehabilitation is a long and fruitful one (Wines 1870, p. 541; Foucault

1977; Cullen & Gilbert 1982, p. 51), and exists in concord with the spiritual bedrock of the

American mentality (Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 140-141). Over each ensuing decade, the concept

of rehabilitation has been refined; now, in its current state, enough research has been conducted

to demonstrate with certainty that rehabilitation holds great promise for the reduction of crime.

Ironically, most discussions of rehabilitation begin with the famous “nothing works”

requiem. Though rehabilitation existed at the forefront of correctional efforts during the late 19th

and early 20th centuries (Cullen & Gendreau 2000, p. 114; Latessa 2003, p. 24-28), soaring crime

rates and social upheaval in the 1960s and 1970s (Cullen & Gilbert 1982, p. 93-94; Cullen &

Gendreau 2000, p. 122) united in a uniform rejection of rehabilitation whose flower was (or

seemed to be) the contentious Martinson Report of 1974. For many criminologists, this was the

authoritative death-knell of rehabilitation as a valid correctional strategy (Cullen & Gendreau

2000, p. 120). Its definitive finding has been quoted in almost every academic paper on the

subject: “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so

far have had no appreciable effect on rehabilitation” (Martinson 1974, p. 54). Unfortunately, this

8

widely-cited sentence has been, in most circumstances, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and

poorly applied (Walker 2006, p. 219). Furthermore, Martinson himself retreated from this

position (1979) five years after his initial finding: “on the basis of the evidence in our current

study, I withdraw [the previous ‘nothing works’] conclusion. I have often said that treatment

added to the networks of criminal justice is ‘impotent’ … the conclusion is not correct” (p. 254).

Though opinions remain somewhat entrenched, evidence and research demonstrate that

rehabilitation can be effective in reducing recidivism (Latessa 2003, p. 508-509).

The research corpus is tremendous: in 2004, as noted by Smith (et al.), more than thirty

meta-analyses synthesized the research findings of approximately 1,000 studies (p. 286). In the

majority of cases (64%; see also Sherman 1997, p. 9.19), the average reduction in recidivism is

10 percent (Smith et al. 2004, p. 286). This effect size is corroborated by several analyses, even

analyses completed by scholars hostile to rehabilitation in general (Cullen 2000, p. 263; Cullen

& Gendreau 2000, p. 137; Whitehead & Lab 1989; Latessa 2003, p. 509; Andrews et al. 1990).

Even more exciting is the prospect that appropriate interventions – that is, programs that share

certain programmatic features – can reduce recidivism by “approximately 25 to 30 percent”

(Smith et al. 2004, p. 286; Andrews & Bonta 2003). In short, the evidence shows that

rehabilitation can and does work. It is the only one of the five organizational philosophies whose

evidential and research base leads to an unchallengeable positive conclusion. This assertion is

constrained, however: only certain types of rehabilitation work, and only when implemented in

certain circumstances (Martinson 1979). But how is the state to ensure that rehabilitation

remains vital and does not descend into what Latessa (2002) refers to as “quackery” (p. 43)?

An endorsement of the rehabilitative strategy does not mean a blanket acceptance of each

internal tactic. First, in order to ensure success, rehabilitative programs that do not work must be

9

discontinued outright. Thankfully, research has revealed which rehabilitative theories,

treatments and approaches do not effectively reduce recidivism: these include acupuncture, self-

esteem therapy, talking cures, bibiliotherapy, healing lodges, diapers treatment, drama therapy,

and the diet and haircut approach (Latessa 2003, p. 510-511; Latessa 2002, p. 44; Smith et al.

2004, p. 288-289). Though these tactics appear absurd to the rational eye, the truth remains,

unfortunately, that practices like these pervade correctional culture and are accepted on shaky

logic with no appeal to evidence or methods (Latessa 2002, p. 43). Furthermore, diversion and

boot camps are also sometimes included within the rehabilitation framework (Walker 2006, p.

224, 232); yet, their effects, according to research, are negative to ambiguous. To free resources

for the pursuit of proper and appropriate interventions, these dysfunctional notions must be

rejected.

Secondly, rehabilitative treatments should adhere to the principles of effective

intervention. These principles encompass every aspect of treatment, and together form a very

precise portrait of the ideal rehabilitative effort: first, interventions should target the known

predictors of crime and recidivism; second, a cognitive-behavioral approach should be used;

third, higher risk offenders should receive the primary force of treatment (Latessa 2003, p. 510-

511; Cullen & Gendreau 2000, p. 145-147; Gendreau 1996; Lipsey 1999, p. 157; Van Voorhis

2004, p. 183). In addition, the organizational culture of program management must emphasize

ethics, goals, efficiency, integrity, credibility, and self-evaluation, and must transfer these

attitudes to service delivery as well (Latessa et al. 2002, p. 45; Andrews 1995). As Latessa

(2003) points out, “[rehabilitative] programs that meet the above principles are more effective

than those that do not” (p. 513). Treatment of offenders can be difficult, especially with the roots

of delinquency extending into childhood and even early development (Farrington 1994; Loeber

10

et al. 2003); because of this, efficiently constructed, targeted, and implemented programs are

indispensable.

Finally, public support of rehabilitation must be considered. In previous years, support of

rehabilitation seemed politically untenable, with the War on Crime demanding tougher and

tougher responses to offenders (Walker 2006). The fact remains, however, that most Americans

living in the twentieth century expect rehabilitation to be a part of – if not the primary goal of –

corrections (Cullen et al. 2000, p. 59; Cullen 2000, p. 287; Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 135). Most

importantly, Americans expect results: a reduction in crime regardless of the approach; the

public is attracted to “what works” (Cullen et al. 2002[b], p. 141). Rehabilitative efforts

constrained by the principles of effective correctional intervention have been shown to be

extremely effective. In this context, public approval is sure to follow the proper implementation

of appropriate rehabilitative interventions.

Conclusion

Research on incapacitation and deterrence has shown both approaches to be ineffective in

reducing crime; similarly, not enough research exists to approve of retribution or restorative

justice. In contrast, a review of the evidence reveals rehabilitation to be a viable and highly

effective approach to crime reduction. Rehabilitation is also highly supported by the public,

especially if yields results. Recognizing these facts, it is clear that rehabilitation, manifesting

properly implemented and appropriate treatments, should be the guiding philosophy of the State

of Ohio in the future.

11

References

Andrews D. A., “The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment,” ed. McGuire J., What Works: Reducing Reoffending—Guidelines from Research and Practice, John Wiley, New York 1995

Andrews D. A., & Bonta J., The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3rd edition, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 2003

Andrews D. A., Bonta J., & Hoge I., “Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17, p. 19-52, 1990

Bonta J., “Risk-needs Assessment and Treatment,” ed. Harland A., Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996

Braithwaite J. “Restorative Justice,” ed. Tonry M., The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, Oxford University Press, New York 1998

Braithwaite J., “Does Restorative Justice Work?” Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation, p. 45-71, Oxford University Press, New York 2002

Cullen F., “Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs,” ed. Wilson J. & Petersilia J., Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, 2nd edition, ICS Press, Oakland, CA, 2002

Cullen F. & Gendreau P., “Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects,” ed. Horney J., Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, National Institute of Justice, Washington DC 2000

Cullen F. & Gilbert K., Reaffirming Rehabilitation, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 1982

Cullen F., Eck J., & Lowenkamp C., “Environmental Corrections: a New Paradigm for Effective Probation and Parole Supervision,” Federal Probation 66 (September), p. 28-37, 2002

Cullen F., Pealer J., Fisher B., Applegate B., & Santana S., “Public support for correctional rehabilitation in America: change or consistency?”

Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice, Willian Publishing, Devon, UK, 2000

Cullen F., Pratt T., Miceli S., & Moon M., “Dangerous Liaison? Rational Choice Theory as the Basis for Correctional Intervention,” Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior: Recent Research and Future Challenges, ed. Piquero A. & Tibbetts S., Taylor & Francis Books, New York, 2002[b]

DiIulio J. & Piehl A., “Does Prison Pay?” The Brookings Review 9 (Fall): p. 28-35, 1991

Farrington D., “Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,” Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 4: p. 209-227, 1994

Foucault M. Surveiller et punir, 1977

Gendreau P., “The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders,” ed. Harland A., Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Ca, 1996

Gendreau P., Goggin C., Cullen F., Andrews D., “The Effects of Community Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidivism,” Forum on Corrections Research 12 (May) p. 10-13, 2000

Latessa E., Corrections in the Community, 3rd edition, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 2003

Latessa E., Cullen, F., & Gendreau P., “Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment,” Federal Probation 66 (September), p. 43-49, 2002

Levrant S., Cullen F., Fulton B., & Wozniak J., “Reconsidering Restorative Justice: The Corruption of Benevolence Revisited?” Crime and Delinquency 45: p. 3-27, 1999

Lipsey M., “Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 564 (July): p. 142-166, 1999

Loeber R., Farrigton D., & Petechuk D., Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention,

12

OJJDP, US Department of Justice, Washington DC, 2003

Lynch M. “Beating a Dead Horse: Is There Any Basic Empirical Evidence for the Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment?’ Crime, Law and Social Change 31 p. 347-362, 1999

MacKenzie, D. “Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works,” Crime and Delinquency 46, p. 457-471, 2000

Martinson, R. “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform,” The Public Interest 35 (Spring): p. 22-54, 1974

Martinson, R. “New Findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform,” Hofstra Law Review 7 (Winter): p. 243-258, 1979

Nagin D. “Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century,” Choosing Correctional Interventions that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply, ed. Harland A., Sage, Newbury Park, 1996

Petersilia J., “California’s Prison Policy: Causes, Costs, and Consequences,” The Prison Journal 72: p. 8-46, 1992

Petersilia J. & Turner S., “Intensive Probation and Parole,” ed. Tonry M., Crime and Justice: a Review of Research 17. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993

Redl F., & Toch H., Psychology of Crime & Justice, Holt, Rineart & Winston, New York, 1979

Reynolds M. Crime and Punishment in America: 1997 Update, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, 1997.

Shannon L. W., McKim J., Curry J., & Haffner L., Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context, Human Sciences Press, New York, 1988

Sherman L. et al., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, University of Maryland, 1997

Smith P., Gendreau P., & Goggin C., “Correctional Treatment: Accomplishments and Realities,” Correctional Counseling & Rehabilitation, ed. Van Voorhs P., 5th edition, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 2004

Spelman W., “What Recent Studies Do (and Don’t) Tell Us about Imprisonment and Crime,” ed. Tonry M., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 27: p. 419-494, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2000

Van Voorhis P., Correctional Counseling & Rehabilitation, 5th edition, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, 2004

Visher C. “Incapacitation and Crime Control: Does ‘Lock ‘Em Up’ Strategy Reduce Crime?” Justice Quarterly 4: p. 413-543, 1987

Walker S., Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, 6th edition, Thomson Wadsworth, Omaha, 2006

Whitehead J., & Lab S., “A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (August), p. 276-295, 1989

Wines, E.C. (ed.), “Declaration of Principles Adopted and Promulgated by the Congress,” Transactions of the National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline, Weed, Parsons, Albany, NY 1871

Wolfgang M., Figlio R., & Thorsten S., Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972

13