NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

Criminology Project

On

“REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS:

WHETHER IT WORKS?”

IV TRIMESTER

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. P.K.SHUKLA SIDDHARTH

VISHWAKARMA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR  (2018BALLB28)
 Contents

Contents................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................3
Research Methodology..........................................................................................................................4
Statement of Problem......................................................................................................................4
Aims and Objectives.........................................................................................................................4
Hypothesis........................................................................................................................................4
Why Rehabilitation?..............................................................................................................................5
Problems with Rehabilitation...............................................................................................................7
The Principle of Effective Intervention................................................................................................11
Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs............................................................................................13
PERSPECTIVE:......................................................................................................................................16
CONCLUSION: Solution to the Problem..............................................................................................24
Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................25

2|Page
 Introduction

Rehabilitation means restoring persons or thing to a former capacity; reinstating; qualifying

again.1The purpose of Rehabilitative sentencing is to prevent further offending by the
individual through the strategy of rehabilitation, which may include therapy, counselling,
intervention in the family, cognitive- behavioural programmes, skills training, etc.NSA Panel
on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques defined rehabilitation as the result of any planned
intervention that reduces an offender’s further criminal activity. The philosophy of
rehabilitation model of punishment suggests that individuals should be treated differently
from one another based on the specific needs and circumstances that contributed to their
criminality. The origins of the rehabilitation model in the US can be traced to the period
following the American Revolution. The early Americans believed that if crimes were the
result of social disorder and the inability to resist temptation, then the best way to address
crime was to create an orderly environment that would help to instil discipline and morality.
Thus, reformers of this period set out to create a new form of punishment that was capable of
accomplishing goals. The punishment devised was the penitentiary.

Rehabilitation seeks to alter the valuesof the offender so that he or she no longer desires to
commit criminal acts: it involves the renunciation of wrongdoing by the offender and the re-
establishment of the offender as an honourable law abiding citizen, and is achieved by
‘reducing or eliminating the factors which contributed to the conduct for which [the offender]
is sentenced’.2 The system of parole, probation, indeterminate sentence and open prisons are
some of the rehabilitative techniques which find place in the modern penal programmes of
most countries of the world. Where an offender does not re- offend, there are always at least
two possible causes of this:

Genuine moral reform or the fear of again being subject to punishment.

Research Methodology
1
Rehabilitation, Black’s Law Dictionary (6thed 1891-1991).
2
Channon v.The Queen, (1978) 33 FLR 433.
3|Page
Statement of Problem

Whether the rehabilitation techniques are effective in the modern penal system?

Aims and Objectives

The aims and objectives of this project are to:

 To understand the concept and problemswith rehabilitation of offenders.

 To analyze the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
 To analyze different perspectives of various criminological theories and
propose solutions on the basis of such interpretation.

Hypothesis

Rehabilitation of offenders reduces re- offending.

Key Words:
Rehabilitation; Re-offending; Effective Intervention; Social Contract Theory

Why Rehabilitation?

4|Page
The rehabilitation of offenders can be defined and understood in a number of different ways.
At different points in the history of modern penal systems different models of rehabilitation
have been current, and each of them has different implications for policy, for sentencing and
for direct practice with offenders. Each model also carries with it, in explicit or implicit
forms, a set of arguments about why it is worth doing. An activity which is complex,
expensive, difficult and unsure of success needs arguments in its support when it competes
for resources, or needs to establish its claims against other aims of sentencing such as
deterrence or incapacitation. In short, the desirability of rehabilitation is not always taken
for granted, and its advocates need from time to time to deploy defences or justification of
what they propose.

This project explores the different kinds of justifications that have been offered to support
various models of rehabilitation. At the outset, it is important to realize that this is not simply
a matter of deploying evidence about effectiveness. In recent years, we have tended to take
for granted that the most important question to ask about rehabilitation is ‘What works?’ or,
in other words, what means can we use to pursue our goals in the most effective manner?
There has been less discussion about what those goals should actually be. Usually, the
implied goal seems to be less re-offending by sentenced offenders, but other versions of
rehabilitation have pursued very different goals: for example, the salvation of human souls, or
the healing of damaged relationships, or a greater sense of safety or security in the everyday
life of communities. These different goals reflect the different values placed on different
kinds of outcome, and these values themselves often draw on further assumptions about
human nature or human purposes.

Consequently, the arguments in this project are to some extent conceptual, concerned with
the logical implications or assumptions of particular kinds of ‘rehabilitation talk’. The point
of this kind of argument is that if our goals are normally taken for granted rather than
discussed, they can become confused or incoherent. Justifications for rehabilitation are
essentially moral arguments about what society ought to do in relation to offenders, and
arguments about what we ought to do cannot simply be derived from evidence about what we
can do: there are plenty of things we can do which we clearly ought not to do. However, there
are other kinds of relationship between evidence and justification. One, as moral philosophers
frequently remind us, is that ‘ought toimply can’: we cannot reasonably claim that someone
has a duty to achieve what is impossible.

5|Page
Another is that different kinds of argument logically require certain kinds of evidence: for
example, arguments based on the effectiveness of rehabilitation require empirical evidence
of the changes it produces in offending behaviour, whilst arguments based on the rights of
offenders require demonstrations of consistency with generally accepted principles
concerning human rights. Such demonstrations belong to a logically different category of
evidence, to which no amount of reconviction-counting could be relevant.

This project, in identifying different kinds of justification advanced for rehabilitation, is also
concerned with the kinds of evidence or argument logically required by each. Prison, drink
and saving souls Histories of the Probation Service in England and Wales, usually, start from
the Church of England Temperance Society’s decision in 1876 to establish a missionary
service in certain police courts. This was an extension of their normal work of trying to
persuade sinners, and particularly drunkards, to reform. Ultimately, this was for the good of
their souls, as well as to reduce the harm they would otherwise continue to do to themselves
and others, such as their families. The missionaries’ activity clearly belongs in the
rehabilitative tradition: a successful outcome was a respectable, self-supporting, abstinent
citizen making his way in the world, or a dutiful, thrifty, abstinent wife and mother. The
ultimate goal and justification, however, was their spiritual welfare: the successfully helped
offender was ‘saved’ rather than ‘lost’. Christians had a duty to show mercy to sinners, and
charity gave this a practical form, but active and caring human contact was necessary to
persuade sinners and unfortunates to reform.

Problems with Rehabilitation

6|Page
On January 18, 1989, the abandonment of rehabilitation in corrections was confirmed by
the U.S. Supreme Court. inMistretta v. United States, the Court upheld federal "sentencing
guidelines" which remove rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing
offenders.

Defendants will henceforth be sentenced strictly for the crime, with no recognition given to
such factors as amenability to treatment, personal and family history, previous efforts to
rehabilitate oneself, or possible alternatives to prison. The Court cited a Senate Report which
"referred to the 'outmoded rehabilitation model' for federal criminal sentencing, and
recognized that the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders
had failed."

This period was marked by the civil rights movement, urban riots, the Vietnam War and
accompanying protests, the shootings at Kent State University and Attica Correctional
Facility, Watergate and related political scandals, and escalating crime rates. As the central
state agency for controlling crime and disorder, the criminal justice system—including its
correctional component—came under careful scrutiny.

Rehabilitation, however, did not die. There have been reports that the commitment to
treatment programs has diminished over the past quarter century.Rehabilitation as a concept
has faced criticism from various groups of society and ideologies. The major one is analysing
the empirical evidence, the Initial Scepticismis thatrehabilitation as a suitable goal of
sentencing does not work. Following extensive research conducted between 1960 and 1974,
Martinson, in a very influential paper, concluded that empirical studies had not established
that any rehabilitative had worked in reducing recidivism. 3 The Panel of the National
Research Council noted that there were no significant differences between the subsequent
recidivism rates of offenders regardless of the form of punishment. ‘This suggests that neither
rehabilitative nor criminogenic effects [i.e. that possible corrupting effect of punishment]
operate very strongly.’4

3
R. Martinson, What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform, in THE PUBLIC
INTEREST 25, (1974)
4
A. Blumstein, J. Cohen and D. Nagin, Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the
Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, in NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, (1978)
7|Page
Penologists disapprove rehabilitation or reformation due to defects in the practices of
enforcement of individualization of treatment that sometimes turns out to be more punitive,
unjust and inhuman than deterrence or retribution.

Others interpret that is involves benevolent justice as the main thrust and as mental pain by
ways of deprivation of liberty during institutional detention is involved. It is erroneous to
consider it as a punishment. For example, Surveillance and Close supervision being there are
themselves punitive.

American studies criticise it for the reason that prison administrators embrace this ideal
because it increases the scope of its dominanceof power with inmates.

Another problem that is faced is a denial of opportunity even after a person has been
released from a rehabilitative institution or after completing a rehabilitative program. The
people who are generally part of such programs have to either report to an officer or attend
meetings to ensure that their process has been complete and they are making progress in
society. But the circumstances are such that even after completion of their term they are
unable to find opportunities in the outside world due to their history and conviction. This
hinders them to find a normal place in the society and slowly they start withdrawing from
their rehabilitative duties which, in many cases, leads them back to the prison doors.

A book published in London in 1890 by the Salvation Army (a religious and social
movement) argues that criminals are, sometimes, ‘hereditary’, but their numbers are
constantly increased by others who slip into criminality through sheer misfortune: ‘Absolute
despair drives many a man into the ranks of the criminal class, who would never have fallen
into the category of criminal convicts if adequate provision had been made for the rescue of
those drifting to doom.’

Such people may lack the strength or good fortune to reform, particularly when the social
reaction to their criminal status denies them the opportunity: ‘When once he has fallen,
circumstances seem to combine to keep him there … the unfortunate who bears the prison
brand is hunted from pillar to post, until he despairs of ever regaining his position, and
oscillates between one prison and another for the rest of his days.’ However given
appropriate help, such a man might ‘regain his position’ and more.

In US in the past decade many prison systems have realizedthat providing mental health
care is a necessity, not a luxury and therefore there has been increased importance given to

8|Page
mental services within prisons.In many prison systems, psychologists are the primary mental
health care providers, with psychiatrists contracted on a part-time basis. They also provide
rehabilitative services that are useful even for prisoners without serious mental illnesses.But
they often struggle to implement such programs while keeping up with their regular prison
caseloads. "We're focused so much on the basic mental health services that there's not
enough time or emphasis to devote to rehabilitative services," says Robert Morgan, PhD, a
psychologist at Texas Tech University who has worked in federal and state prisons and
studies treatment methods for inmates.

Another problem faced by rehabilitation units is shortage of resources. Funding becomes a

major problem as government wishes to see immediate effects which can be used to show
their effectiveness to the people of that country. They invest in maintenance of rehabilitation
programs but not effectiveness of the same.

More promising evidence

However, several years later, Martinson softened his position, stating that some types of
rehabilitation programmes, particularly probation parole, may be effective. The critical
factor seems to be conditions under which the program is delivered’. 5 And, indeed there is
now mounting evidence that rehabilitation works for some in some circumstances:

Research so far has on the whole confirmed what one would expect: that individual
success may sometimes be claimed by routine psychotherapy or counselling with
intelligent, articulate neurotic offenders; by sympathy and encouragement for those
unsure of their limits and capabilities; and by direct assistance and support for those
weighed down by practical difficulties. But none of these approaches is appropriate for
other than a minority of the offender population, whose misdemeanours reflect some
real psychological maladjustment and not just their social ‘deviance’.6

That there is some level of success with rehabilitative techniques in relation to the least
dysfunctional offenders, I not so much evidence of a victory for the rehabilitative ideal, as
it is for that some people are likely to only occasionally dabble in crime.

5
R. Martinson, supra note 3 at 254.
6
Michael Brody, The minimalist program and a perfect syntax, in MIND AND LANGUAGE 205-
214, (1998).
9|Page
Since Martinson’s review, a more sophisticated technique (called “meta- analysis”) has been
developed to help researchers determine statistically the average effect that interventions
produce. Numerous meta- analysis of the correctional treatment literature have been
conducted, and these contemporary studies reveal that rehabilitation programs can have a
substantial effect on criminal offending. One such review of 200 interventions for serious
juvenile offenders revealed that, on average, treatment programs reduced recidivism by 12
percent. When the best, most successful programs were examined separately, it was found
that these interventions reduced recidivism by 20 percentage points. Thus, it is no longer
appropriate to conclude that “nothing works”. Indeed, researchers and correctional
practitioners are now turning their attention to “what works”.

10 | P a g e
 The Principle of Effective Intervention

In an effort to determine “what works”, researchers have identified a set of criteria, or

principles, that help to distinguish successful programs from unsuccessful programs. These
criteria are referred to as the “principles of effective intervention”.

The first principle is that correctional interventions should target known predictors of crime
and recidivism for change. Many correctional interventions are based on common sense ideas
about how to change offenders. This principle, in contrast, emphasises the importance of
focusing our treatment efforts on changing those characteristics or circumstances that have
an empirically established relationship with crime. These characteristics and circumstances
are sometimes referred to as “criminogenic risk factors” or “criminogenic needs”.

As an example, we know that individuals who have trouble controlling their impulses are
more likely to commit crime than others. The first principle of effective intervention suggests
that a program that attempts to improve impulse control is likely to affect crime.

Second, the treatment services should be behavioural in nature. Correctional programs can
be based on numerous modes of treatment. Meta- analysis has revealed, however, that
programs using behavioural or cognitive- behavioural approaches are most effective. In
contrast, psychoanalysis and other insight- oriented approaches do not work well with
offenders.

Third, treatment interventions should be used primarily with high- risk offenders, and
criminogenic needs should be targeted. Although many people assume that high- risk
criminals are not good candidates for rehabilitation programs, these individuals, like low- risk
offenders, are capable of change. Targeting high- risk offenders makes better use of
correctional resources asthat has the potential to achieve substantial crime savings. Programs
that focus on treating low- risk offenders are less likely to realize reductions in recidivism
because the group of offenders is unlikely to recidivate to begin with.

Fourth, treatment effectiveness will be increased if programs have treatment integrity and
take into account a range of other considerations. Even the best intervention will not work if
they are not well implemented. It is important, for instance, that programs hire staff who are
well trained and sensitive, and who know how to deliver the treatment services. Moreover,

11 | P a g e
there are circumstances under which programs are more effective. For example, programs are
more effective when implemented in the community instead of in an institution; programs
that have treatment manuals are better than those that do not; and programs relapse
prevention are more successful.

12 | P a g e
 Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programs

Slowly but surely it is being recognised that rehabilitation is the way to reduce crime;
projects such as Turning Point 218 in Glasgow has had enormous success at reducing
recidivism, and it is reported that it will be rolled out across Scotland. The project is aimed at
women, with the focus on tackling addictions, with a view to restoring some routine in the
previously chaotic lives of women who have entered the criminal justice system.

The project would see women taught life skills, such as debt management, parenting skills,
tackling hygiene and cooking. They will also be encouraged to maintain relationships with
their children where suitable. The chair of the Commission on Women Offenders, former
Lord Advocate Dame ElishAngiolini said that

“… many of the women are vulnerable people for whom offending is the result of chaotic
lifestyles, mental health difficulties and addiction problems. We must… be able to find
better ways of addressing their behaviour than locking more and more of them up.”

The thinking is this: by imposing custodial sentences with insufficient regard paid to the
causes of their offending, offenders do not address their behaviour and return to society in a
worse position than when they were removed.

Texas has demonstrated that rehabilitation works and costs less than building more prisons
to cope with increasing capacity from ever increasing sentences. That’s right, the same State
which has executed 481 people since 1976, and currently has 317 people on death row. It
would appear, however, that when faced with the statistic that, for juveniles, custody is less
effective than supervision and treatment of offenders in the community, the powers that be
have taken note.

There is a strong basis for confidence that educative techniques can be devised to teach
offenders to accord greater respect to the interests of others. Indeed, recent evidence suggests
that cognitive- behavioural rehabilitation programmes, which focus on the links between
beliefs, attitudes and behaviour, are extremely promising. Following a recent wide ranging
review of the published studies in rehabilitation (which compared the recidivism rate of
offenders who were subject to rehabilitative treatment to those who were not), Howells and
Day suggest that these are the most successful types of programme.

13 | P a g e
Cognitive- behavioural programmes target factors that are (presumably) changeable and are
directed at the ‘criminogenic needs’ of offenders, that is, factors which are directly related to
the offending, such as anti- social attitudes; self- control; and problem solving skills. 7
Promising programmes have been developed in the areas of anger management, sexual
offending and drug and alcohol use. These appear to be more successful than programmes
based on such as confrontation or direct deterrence, physical challenge or vocational training.
Three judges in Missouri have even taken to imposing transcendental meditation
programmes as part of the probation conditions of minor offenders; apparently with great
success.8

The more tolerant, understanding and educative we are in trying to facilitate attitudinal
change in others, the closer we come to providing them with a social service. For example,
cognitive- behavioural programmes focus on the needs of offenders and attempt to meet these
needs by education and counselling with the aim of reshaping their beliefs, attitudes, and
values and improving their problem solving capacity, in order that they no longer engage in
criminal behaviour. Such programmes seem to work best in community settings rather
delivered in institutions.9

Community Penalties

According to the latest Home Office figures, 57% of offenders given community penalties
were reconvicted of a standard list offence within 2 years of the commencement of the order.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of offenders attending a probation centre as part of a probation
order started in 1993 were reconvicted of another of offence within 2 years. For those on
probation orders with additional specified activities and those on ‘straight’ probation the
recidivism rates were 61% and 59% respectively. The top rate of recidivism for probation
centres reflects the tendency to use this form of probation for more serious offenders with a
higher risk of re- offending. Indeed, much of the variation in recidivism rates between the
main community penalties can beattributed to differences in the characteristics of
offenders, such as their age, number of previous convictions, gender, and age at first

7
K. Howells and A. Day, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, in THE
REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES APPLIED TO AUSTRALIAN
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS 112, (1999)
8
Farrant D, ‘Meditation: a serene but effective path to criminal enlightenment’ (1999) The
Age, 16 November, p 6.
9
Howells and Day, supra note 7 at 4 and 5.
14 | P a g e
conviction. Women and older people havelower rates of re- offendinggenerally than men
and younger people. While those with a large number of previous convictions and an early
age offirst conviction tends to have the highest recidivism rates.

A Home Office study of 42 such schemes operating between 1989 and 1993 found that,
overall, reconviction rates were higher than predicted, especially among young offenders.
Only for the older group of offenders who attended such projects was the actual reconviction
rate lower than predicted. However, offenders who failed to complete their participation in
the projects were subsequently reconvicted at much higher rates than their age and previous
criminal convictions would suggest. Nearly 80% of the participants were reconvicted for an
offence within2 years of their original sentence and, ironically, 75% of these were
reconvicted for a motoring offence. These, at bestmixed results suggest that the schemes had
little positive effect on offending behaviour.
A Home Office study (May 1997)found that 88% of magistrates were very or fairly satisfied
with the work of the probation service in their respective areas, and 90% reported that they
enjoyed a very good or fairly good working relationship. Moreover, nearly 70% usually
found pre- sentence reports prepaid by probation officers to be useful and 66% were satisfied
with the availability of a number of community disposals. As a service provider for the
courts, the probation services clearly reaching high level of customer satisfaction but, as we
have seen, it needs to do much better in relation to its work on reducing rates of re- offending.

15 | P a g e
 PERSPECTIVE:

Rehabilitation of Offenders and the Criminological

Theories

Social Contract Theory:

Social contract theory suggests that rehabilitation is best understood not primarily as the
prevention of re-offending, but as the promotion of desistance from offending. This is a
wider perspective than simply seeing rehabilitation as what the State does via agency
intervention or, conversely, fails to do. The accent on desistance would clearly indicate active
agentic participation by the offender in the rehabilitation process so that crucially
rehabilitation ‘becomes something done by the offender rather than to the offender’ (ibid). To
date, the importance of desistance has been singularly lacking in government penal policy. 10

Decriminalization
Removing of status offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.11

Deinstitutionalization
The removal of juveniles from jails, detention centres, and institutions. Removing juveniles
from these facilities, and when possible removing status and minor offenders from the
juvenile justice system as a whole, is the most basic type of diversion.

Disintegrative Shaming
The process by which an individual is punished, labelled, and made to feel shame for
committing a deviant act in a manner that degrades and devalues the individual. This occurs
without an attempt after the offenders have been punished to reconcile them with or restore
them to the larger community.

10
Review by Roger Moore, Rehabilitation, crime and Justice, Internet Journal of
Criminology, 2010.
11
Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, Application ,Sixth Edition By Ronald L.
Akers and Christine S. Sellers
16 | P a g e
Diversion Movement

This refers to all those efforts to divert individuals, primarily youth but also adults who are
suspected of or have been charged with minor offenses, from the full and formal process of
the juvenile or adult justice system. The intent is to reduce the stigma of formal delinquent or
criminal labels on the individuals and to reduce or avoid the costs of formal processing of the
crime. A diversion program in the criminal justice system is a form of sentencing[1] and such
programs are often run by a police department, court, a district attorney's office, or outside
agency designed to enable offenders of criminal law to avoid criminal charges and a criminal
record.[2] Problem-solving courts typically include a diversion component as part of their
program. The purposes of diversion are generally thought to include relief to the courts,
police department and probation office, better outcomes compared to direct involvement of
the court system, and an opportunity for the offender to avoid prosecution by completing
various requirements for the program.[3] These requirements may include:

 Education aimed at preventing future offenses by the offender

 Restitution to victims of the offense
 Completion of community service hours
 Avoiding situations for a specified period in the future that may lead to committing
another such offense (such as contact with certain people)[3]

Diversion programs often frame these requirements as an alternative to court or police

involvement or, if these institutions are already involved, furtherprosecution. Successful
completion of program requirements often will lead to a dropping or reduction of the charges
while failure may bring back or heighten the penalties involved. Charges dismissed because
of a diversion program will still lead to additional criminal history points under the US
Sentencing Guidelines if there was a finding of guilt by a court or the defendant pleaded
guilty or otherwise admitted guilt in open court, provided that the deferred disposition was
not a juvenile matter.

Faith-Based Programs
These are religiously based programs which can be operated within the institution or the
larger community. They can be run by inmates or religious leaders, and use spiritual beliefs
and values to change offenders’ attitudes and behaviours.

17 | P a g e
Labelling Theory

The theory that the formal and informal application of stigmatizing and deviant “labels” or
tags applied to an individual by society will not deter, but rather instigate future deviant or
criminal acts. Labelling theory focuses on formal and informal applications of stigmatizing
and deviant “labels” by society on some of its members. Many have argued however, that
these labels are often the result of the statuses of the individual, e.g., race, social class, and
socioeconomics, as opposed to any act committed. Labelling theory treats such labels as both
cause and effect, as independent and dependent variables.
Lemert focused on two stages of deviance: Primary deviance is the commission of criminal
acts before the individual is caught and punished for them; and Secondary deviance refers to
crimes committed due to the label society has placed upon an offender. A major concept in
symbolic interactionism is the “looking-glass self,” in which our self concepts are reflections
of other people’s conceptions of us, as revealed in their interactions with us. Labelling theory
mirrors conflict theory in that the individuals with power create and enforce rules at the
expense of the less powerful.
In recent years, there has been increased attention on the labelling theory (Bernburg, Krohn&
Rivera, 2006; Chiricos, Barrick, Bales &Bontrager, 2007). The labelling perspective is less
concerned with what caused a deviant act than what occurs after the act is committed. Many
youth engage in deviant or criminal acts, which labelling theorists call primary deviance
(Lemert, 1967). These acts will often go unnoticed, and may have no long term impact on the
child.
However, some acts will become known and can stigmatize the delinquent in a way that
isolates them from the dominant culture. Labelling theorists identify this process as a primary
factor that increases subsequent criminal behaviour (Lemert, 1967). The delinquents begin to
internalize these labels, and subsequent crime becomes a product of the delinquent’s deviant
self-image. The final stage of a delinquent’s self-image is their involvement in an organized
deviant group (Becker, 1963). Research involving subcultures of crime has a long tradition
in criminology (e.g., Miller, 1958). In his classic study of delinquent subcultures, Cohen
(1955) described a delinquent subculture of the lower class which developed through a
process of conflict with the middle class culture.
According to Cohen, working class children are exposed to a different set of cultural
standards than those from the middle class. When the working class children are judged by

18 | P a g e
the traditional middle class standards, a subculture is created which provides a set of
expectations that the children can meet. The policy implications of labelling theory are clear:
exposing juvenile delinquents to official court processing should increase rather than
decrease the rate of subsequent deviant behaviour. This hypothesis has largely been
confirmed by scholarly research. For example, Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino&Guckenburg
(2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 29 experiments over a 35 year period, finding that the
formal processing of juveniles resulted in higher levels of delinquency than diverting them
from the juvenile justice system altogether.
Research also confirms that formal juvenile justice interventions lead to an increase in
delinquent peer associations (Johnson, Simons & Conger, 2004). Bernburg, Krohn& Rivera
(2006) found that the official labelling process led to an increased exposure to delinquent
subcultures. Further, this increased association with deviant peers resulted in higher levels of
delinquency. Recent research indicates that the harmful effects of labelling can be reduced
by the presence of supportive and involved parents around the time of labelling (Jackson &
Hay, 2013

Net-Widening.
A problem that occurs when offenders who would have been released from the system are
placed in a program simply because a program exists. This often occurs in diversion
programs. Boot camps may be a viable option to keep kids out of institutions, but it becomes
net-widening when kids, who otherwise would have been sent home, are sent to boot camps.

Pre-Trial Intervention or Delayed Adjudication

Programs for first-time, nonviolent adult offenders. Those who agree to specific conditions
may avoid trial or sentencing altogether. The Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) is a
program targeted at providing first-time offenders charged with non-violent crimes in the
state of New Jersey with an opportunity to avoid the crippling consequences often associated
with a felony criminal conviction, and attempts to relieve some of the burden on the criminal
justice system caused by such offenders. The program renders early rehabilitative services
and aims to deter future criminal behavior. Many other states have similar programs
employed under a variety of names.
In New Jersey, the program allows eligible first-time offenders who have (typically) been
charged with certain third- or fourth-degree crimes to seek admission into the program. If
granted, defendants are placed under court supervision for a period lasting between one and

19 | P a g e
three years. During this probationary period, the participant may be subject to random urine
monitoring, fines, and other penalties depending on the nature of the alleged criminal action.
Successful completion of the PTI program is often contingent upon performance of
community service, timely payment of restitution, and/or strict compliance with the
requirements of a prescribed treatment regimen. These treatments may include psychological
counseling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, and other recovery services.
Successful completion of the PTI program requirements results in the
complete expungement of the criminal charges that would have otherwise become a part of
the defendant's criminal record, had they entered a guilty plea or been convicted at trial. This
benefit can be extraordinarily valuable in terms of the increased range of accessible
opportunities for new jobs, housing, etc. when compared to the highly restricted opportunities
presented to persons living with the stigma of a felony conviction on their records.

Reintegrative Shaming
The process by which an individual is punished, labelled, and made to feel shame for
committing a deviant act, but done in a way that the individual who is shamed is brought
back into the larger community and restored to a position of respectability. John Braithwaite
(1989) proposed a theory of crime causation that incorporates many of the theoretical ideas
presented above. Braithwaite’s main proposal was that a society’s structure and culture can
influence individual deviant acts by a process of shaming. Most punishments consist of
some type of shaming from friends, family and the community. Braithwaite argues that the
resulting guilt serves both as the social process which builds our consciences as well as a
form of informal social control when wrongdoing occurs. Braithwaite (1989) distinguished
between two types of shaming: 1) stigmatization and 2) reintegrative. Stigmatization occurs
when the community attempts to socially isolate the offender with punishments such as
incarceration. Recent attempts to increase the numbers of juveniles who are waived to adult
court could be considered an example of stigmatization. With these laws, society seeks to
detach these juvenile offenders from the community. However, these punishments create the
risk of a rebellious reaction.
As noted by Braithwaite (1989: 67) “when individuals are shamed so remorselessly and
unforgivingly that they become outcasts…it becomes more rewarding to associate with
others who are perceived in some limited or total way as also at odds with mainstream
standards”.

20 | P a g e
Braithwaite advocated the use of reintegrative shaming. Modelled from the social
environment of a loving family, reintegrative shaming includes the use of clear standards of
conduct and punishment. However, the focus of the punishment is on the criminal act instead
of the individual. Reintegrative shaming involves punishment followed by efforts to
reintegrate the offender back into the community through forgiveness. To be most effective,
reintegrative shaming should take place before the offender becomes an outcast and discovers
subcultures which are more accepting of their behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989).
The American system of justice has adopted some of the approaches to delinquency that are
supported by reintegrative shaming theory. Restorative justice is one such program. It is a
way to handle offenses and wrongdoing that has been practiced both formally and informally
for many years. It predates the theoretical framework of reintegrative shaming that supports it
(Makkai& Braithwaite, 1994). Braithwaite combined his understanding of communitarian
societies and the success of both formal and informal restorative strategies to explain his
theory of reintegrative shaming. This theory then provided a strong theoretical basis for
restorative practices as well as a way for researchers to test the assumptions of this theory and
these interventions (Makkai& Braithwaite, 1994). Restorative justice, reintegrative shaming,
and peace-making are often misunderstood and controversial topics within the criminal
justice system. The belief that these are “soft on crime” is the main obstacle in spreading
their use throughout the system. This view stems from a misunderstanding of the concept of
restorative justice and peacemaking. There are several definitions of restorative justice in the
literature which only adds to this confusion.
Bazemore and Walgrave (1999) call restorative justice “every action that is primarily oriented
towards doing justice by repairing the harm that has been caused by crime” (p. 48). These
actions range from pre-trial diversions such as victim-offender mediations (also often referred
to as restorative justice conferences) to post-sentencing actions such as victim-impact panels
and sentencing circles. The theory of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice itself
becomes much clearer when the actual practice is explained. Much of the doubt and beliefs
about its ease on criminals are changed once the intangible aspects of this theory are
demonstrated in a real-world setting. Shaming, reintegration, agreements, tension, empathy,
the ah-ha moments – these are the intangibles that are often difficult to fully explain in a
theoretical discussion but are demonstrated strongly when restorative justice is in action.
Understanding the conference structure, what is expected from a conference, and what comes
from a conference changes many people’s attitudes towards the process of restorative justice.
It is not a slap on the wrist – no one involved in the situation enjoys the tension and

21 | P a g e
confrontation that occurs in a conference. It is not simply a way to force an apology –
offenders are not required to apologize nor are victims asked to accept the apology that
typically comes. It is not a substitute for punishment – judges have the ability to order
participation in a conference along with a traditional form of punishment such as probation.
The practice of restorative justice is a way to bring humanity back into the criminal justice
system. It provides the opportunity for victims and offenders to participate more fully in the
justice process and create real change for all parties. These stories come from actual
restorative justice conferences in the Northeast Tennessee area and show the good that can
come from a restorative or reintegrative process.

Restorative Justice
This refers to programs which are designed to make offenders take responsibility for their
actions and restore them and their victims, as much as possible, back to things as they existed
before the offense. Often offenders will apologize to the victims and to the community, and
attempt to financially compensate the victims for their losses.
Restorative justice can even be used when the designation of victim and offender is not clear
cut. In truancy cases for instance, the label of victim for the school system seems a bit
extreme. However, the school is a victim in the sense that something is taken away from them
during the course of the offense. Schools receive funds based on the number of students in
their seats. When students are not in regular attendance, they lose money.

Victim-offender mediationis about providing voices to victims and offenders while

trying to fix the wrong that the offender has created. In the case of truancy, this is exactly
what needs to happen. The school needs to understand the offender and the offender needs to
understand the many reasons it is important to be in school. They have a mutual interest in
the student being there. In a truancy conference, the typical script needs to be modified. This
is not a typical offense. The focus is actually on the victim helping the offender. The school
system is in a special situation to help the offender, which in turn helps them. The reasons for
truancy are varied. Parents who work early and are not there to get the children up for school,
health issues, bullying, or boredom with school are among the most common explanations. It
is quite amazing how simply shining a light on the issue at hand is enough to end the truancy.

22 | P a g e
A conference gives parents and families the opportunity to ask for help as well as a chance
for the school to offer it.
Despite the many ways schools attempt to reach out to families, a conference provides a
personal one-on-one explanation for school policies and resources that many parents are
unaware of. It is quite common for the reason for the truancy to be a health issue such as
asthma. The child wakes up with breathing problems one day, and the parent keeps the child
home from school that day. Doing this several times in a few months without the proper
paperwork will quickly cause the child to miss too many days of school. While it is the
parents’ responsibility to understand school policy, the conference gives them a second
chance to correct the situation. Sometimes all that is needed is this reminder to students and
parents of the importance of school attendance.
Restorative justice has been found to be effective in reducing recidivism for nonviolent and
violent offenders, to effective at reducing court costs and time, and to be more satisfying for
all involved including court personnel, victims, and offenders (Bergseth&Bouffard, 2013;
Kim & Gerber, 2011; Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005; Rodriguez, 2007).
With public support and policy heading towards more restorative approaches to justice, the
use of programming rooted in reintegrative shaming may be on the rise. The majority of
states are implementing restorative justice at some level (Pavelka, 2008). Despite the positive
results of restorative justice and reintegrative shaming, however, the number of states widely
supporting its use is still small.
As restorative justice grows in popularity, it will likely face many obstacles (Umbreit&
Armour, 2011). Instead of merely fine-tuning the existing structure of the American juvenile
justice system, restorative justice represents a fundamental paradigm shift from the retributive
models that were popular in the past three decades. This approach likely will face resistance
in communities with a strong desire for punitive punishment. A clearer understanding of
reintegrative shaming that details its positive aspects may be a way to combat the distrust of
this form of justice and allow for continued growth.

23 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION:
Solution to the Problem

The project presented creates a dichotomy by simultaneously proposing rehabilitation and

punishment. Rehabilitation has been proved to reduce reoffending. Putting an offender on a
programme, with a tag and under the threat of a suspended sentence still leaves the option of
a custodial penalty for failure or breach. It is not easy to evaluate the worth of rehabilitative
sentences, not least because they appear to have several aims. If the aim of such sentences is
to provide alternatives to custody then they have largely failed since the prison population
continues to increase. On the whole, in terms of recidivism rates, rehabilitative sentences do
no better nor worse than custody. If the aim is to make available a cheaper form of
penalty for offenders then, compared withthe cost of custody, community sentences enjoy a
great advantage.

Community based penalties clearly have a future. The questions that may be asked of them
are likely to be two-fold. First, can they be refined to such an extent that they actually
produce a significant decrease in rates of reoffending? Second, if they are able to achieve the
first goal of reducing recidivism, will they ever be able to regain that position as alternatives
to custody and thereby help to reduce the prison population.

It is important to appreciate that our key aim when sentencing ought to not necessarily be to
punish the individual, but to improve things for society as a whole. Whether we like it or not,
reducing the cost to the tax payer and the number of victims of crime means helping the
offenders help themselves. The end product is a reduction of the burden on the State, less
crime and fewer victims.The way in which to achieve this is to have a general policy that for
sentences less than two years a community disposal is imposed. This enables the offender the
opportunity to be rehabilitated in the community, but as outlined above, preserves the option
of a custodial sentence where the offender breaches his or her sentence.

24 | P a g e
 Bibliography

1. MIRKE BAGARIC, PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING: A RATIONAL APPROACH,

(Cavendish Publishing Limited Great Britain)
2. DAVID LEVINSON, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, (VOLUME 3, Sage
Publications California)
3. PROF. N. V. PARANJAPE, CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY WITH VICTIMOLOGY, (16thed.,
Central Law Publications Allahabad) (2014)
4. AHMED SIDDIQUE, CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY, (6thed., Eastern Book Company
Lucknow)( 2009)
5. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (6thed.)

25 | P a g e