Corrections strategy: history of significant issues in the change from the rehabilitative era to the punitive era

Abstract

The late 1970s saw the beginning of a change in penal philosophy in this country from a rehabilitative corrections model to a punitive model. In a law review article for the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics entitled, ‘‘Current development 2006–2007: Penal reform and the necessity for therapeutic jurisprudence’’, Parker describes the difference between the two philosophies thus: [T]he rehabilitative model was based on a perception of the criminal as sick and in need of treatment or rehabilitation. Because the theory looked to offenders’ need for treatment rather than to the character of their crimes, it allowed different sentences for similar offenses. On the other hand, according to Parker, the just-deserts [punitive] model is premised on the argument that criminal offenders are blameworthy because they are capable of choosing whether to commit a crime. This argument dates back to the Calvinist principle that punishment was not intended to save the criminal because humans were inherently sinful, and only God could save them. Two to three decades later, it seems the pendulum is now beginning to swing in the opposite direction once again, raising questions about the impact of the punitive era on the corrections situation in this country. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the more significant corrections changes associated with the punitive era in order to begin to understand how they have contributed to a very different corrections landscape from the one they replaced.