We accept

Rehabilitation, Treatment, and the Management of Offenders: Can Abuse Cure?

Rehabilitation, Treatment, and the Management of Offenders: Can Consequence Cure?


This paper will discuss how the authors of three particular articles, Megan Comfort, Mona Lynch, Kelly Hannah-Moffat and Paula Maurutto, interpret the rehabilitative techniques for legal offenders. The writers arguments of who is in charge of this rehabilitation fluctuate widely. You will see a brief summary of each authors debate and the essay will conclude in describe which authors discussion is most extensive in detailing who the duty of rehabilitation falls on.

Key words: Punishment, Rehabilitation, Rhetoric, Responsibility


The Best Seven Years I Coulda Done: The Reconstruction of Imprisonment as Rehabilitation

By Megan Comfort

The Best Seven Years I Coulda Done by Megan Comfort is approximately the treatment process experienced by many low-income men in the United States. Rehabilitation is defined as restoring someone to a good role in population ("Rehabilitation, " 2009). Comfort says that the men who are incarcerated in California choose prison in an effort to achieve healthier romantic relationships and also to improve themselves. Since treatment programs are scarce, the average person becomes accountable for their own improvement. We are able to see that individuals article making the best of their situation even when there aren't sufficient programs available to help them get clean. However we can see that having less these programs can be considered a risk towards reoffending. Despite the fact that there are a few programs available, the offenders declare that these programs lack anomity and would rather spend their time behind bars because they're able to build goals that they would like to achieve after they are released. Thus, the responsibility of treatment is shifted to the specific, and we can question if the role that parole brokers play is of any relevance in any way. Comfort also detects that these men take part in a period of acting as if their experience in the penitentiary is effective in preparing them for re-entry into society. However, after these men are actually released from the penitentiary, they realize the negative repercussion of not effectively being rehabilitated. On the other hand, rehabilitative treatment in the varieties of therapy, job training, and education can show much more favourable results for a person being reintegrated back to society.

Rehabilitation as Rhetoric: The Ideal of Reformation in Modern Parole Discourse and Practices

By Mona Lynch

Mona Lynch discusses the shifts in the purpose of parole throughout history. She signifies three strong changes in parole history in which each era has another type of view on who's responsible to increase the parolee. The three eras of parole are marked thus; the disciplinary period, clinical time, and the managerial era. Lynch talks about the first two as being a mixed responsibility of the state, community, and the given individual to help them become normalized into modern culture. In the third era, she claims that the responsibility is shifted on to the parole agent and the offender to help him improve. We can see that there surely is a shared responsibility. Lynch continues on to say that there surely is little investment placed into rehabilitative options and programs to aid the parolee to boost. To conclude we can easily see that the issues that the agent would help the average person with are in reality being dealt with as the poor choices of the average person, even though there are programs in spot to help fix the poor choices the individual has made, they are really actually used as coercive tools up against the parolee. We can notice that the rhetoric of rehabilitation is portrayed as positioning unrealistic demands on the given individual to normalize themselves, of course, if he does not succeed it is known as their own fault, and the providers are able to use coercion when they believe it is necessary to protect culture from deviant habit.

Shifting and Targeted Forms of Penal Governance: Bail, Abuse and Shifting and Specialized Courts

By Kelly Hannah-Moffatt and Paula Maurutto

Shifting and Targeted Types of Penal Governance by Hanna Moffat and Paula Maurutto discusses treatment in Canadian special courts. They state that treatment today is a lot different from days gone by. Throughout the record of the criminal justice system, rehabilitation took on the goal of providing therapy to the average person offender, but today it works on two levels. The foremost is to provide therapy to the offender through job training and counselling and the second purpose of rehabilitation is to exercise control. The last mentioned purpose can be seen to be intrusive. The unlawful justice system is incorporating rehabilitation and consequence as a punitive solution. They dispute that rehabilitation will not serve a single goal but it is binary. In conclusion we can see that treatment is very messy because it is both a mixture of abuse and remedy and also requires the role to be coercive and managing.

The Responsibility of Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation has shifted in form throughout record and has truly gone from being therapeutic to taking on a managing and coercive appearance. Many people dispute about which form of rehabilitation is most effective but the reason for rehabilitation is to figure out why an specific committed a criminal offense, and give attention to those aspects to foster a permanent change. It really is part of a more substantial modernity. There are many articles about who should undertake the responsibility of treatment and through this research I will format how the creators Megan Comfort, Mona Lynch, Hanna Moffatt and Paula Maurutto write about the subject. I QUICKLY will conclude with which author presents the most comprehensive debate for who should undertake rehabilitation responsibility.

To commence with, Mona Comfort says that prison does not rehabilitate an individual back into population because the prison system does not have programs in place which could assist the offenders in becoming normalized into culture. She says that the prison only serves the goal of being truly a primary means of service access where these men who are refused social welfare are now able to get a hold of it within the penitentiary (Comfort, 2008). These men act as if the jail can help them re-enter contemporary society because they are able to create goals that they want to achieve. However, Comforts studies also show that thousands of released prisoners who relapse and reoffend are a blunt testimony that the California Team of Correction or Rehabilitation is wearing very few rehabilitative clothes (Comfort, 2008). Despite the fact that men believe that the prison can make them clean, studies establish that they generally will reoffend because the programs to help them become normalized in jail were non-existent or limited.

In comparison, Mona Lynch writes that rehabilitation is more within penitentiaries than Comfort would argue. She claims that although treatment has changed into being more managerial, it still contains onto some previous ideologies so we can consider it as just re-invented. It is keeping the old rhetoric but doing it in different or modern ways. In days gone by it took over a therapeutic form but today it is binary in being both healing and coercive. In her impression, rehabilitation is a combined responsibility of both offender and the parole agent, but there may be more focus on the offender wanting to improve. She also creates that rehabilitation appears very important to the organization to portray to lots of audiences, like the public, the customers, and the agencies responsible for placing goals into actions. The commitment however will not extend past this rhetoric (Lynch, 2000).

Finally, Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto see rehabilitation in another form than Comfort, but relatively much like Lynch. They see treatment motivated by therapeutic and preventative goal plus they rely on human relationships with community organizations to make a range of interactions with the courtroom and the offender (Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2012). The way that rehabilitation has shifted from being just restorative, then to coercive, and then into a meshing of the two, is a new feature of the Canadian legal justice system. They write that rehabilitation is a shared responsibility, and it extends beyond the jail. It requires the combined work of experts and the city to work together to re-integrate a person back into culture. One can also argue that this type of rehabilitation would be fairer in terms of seeking the best program to take care of the precise needs of the offender, and will be more lucrative in reintegrating them into society as a result. In Maurutto and Moffatts discussion, rehabilitation is able to be considered a life-changing experience alternatively than just an attempt to change a persons deviant personality.

In finish we see there's a deviation in the quarrels presented by Comfort, Lynch and Maurutto and Moffat. However, in my opinion I believe that the last mentioned two creators who argue that the state of hawaii and community should work together to help make the individual more responsible is more comprehensible than the other two quarrels. Although Comfort claims that the duty comes on the offender, studies also show that they will associated risk reoffending if left to their own devices. This will not then seem natural to make the individual responsible for their own treatment, because the goal of abuse is to deter an action that deviates from the societal norms. She also argues that the jail does not offer programs and even when they do that theyre counting on you not to utilize them (Comfort, 2008). Instead the state decides to invest $35, 587 each year to imprison an offender, forgetting that they might use those cash to re-integrate the offender. The individual is made liable plus they leave the prison with no additional skills or information to help him enter into population (Comfort, 2008). It is therefore not effective never to make the express responsible because the individual cannot find employment by himself and he's left seeking the unlawful justice system to help him get clean, but this only provides him with temporary access to sociable welfare.

On the other hands, Lynchs argument that there is a distributed responsibility between your parole agent and the offender is more comprehensive and possibly effective than Comforts since there is an exterior assistance system create to rehabilitate the offender. Addititionally there is the execution of punitive punishments. The key reason why Comforts argument to make the individual in charge does not bode well is because you should not expect somebody who is deviant to be dependable. However with parole real estate agents dealing with part responsibility, it seems much more likely that treatment will have a greater success rate. Lynch argues that before, parole served the purpose of being therapeutic and today it takes on both healing and coercive assignments. This is more of an efficient argument because the goal of prison is to punish as well as to help them get back in to society. The brand new age of parole is more effective because their state is protecting modern culture from dangerous offenders while helping them make contact with being normal and successful in society. To conclude, this model is not completely casting off a section of the population, rather crime abuse and disciplinary action will work collectively to make put together efforts to make the offender accountable (Lynch, 2000).

However, the argument made my Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto provides an even more complete debate for who should contain the responsibility to rehabilitate the individual. They dispute that treatment happens as soon as you are recharged, and since there are specialised community groups dealing with the offender, they are able to address the primary holistic needs of the offender in order to ensure successful completion of cure program (Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2012). Classic courts are criticized for failing to address effectively long-term social programs which is why if the particular courts take the responsibly they can be better equipped to target specific needs (Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2012). The whole procedure for how better to rehabilitate specific situations and people would begin as soon as the incurred person came into the courtroom and wouldn't normally wait around until they came into prison itself. Each method starts off rehabilitation at an alternative time in the individuals relationship with the legal justice system, but in the 3rd one it starts from the beginning; the moment the average person is charged. This is almost more of a preventative design of rehabilitation and a cross types.

In bottom line, using Hannah-Moffat & Mauruttos ideas on the responsibility to rehabilitate an offender being distributed between specific courts, community programs and the individual is better since it assumes preventative therapeutic methods but they have never eroded the traditional form of abuse (Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2012). The chance to participate in these programs is effective for the parolee because their charges may be withdrawn, or they could get a complete or conditional discharge (Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2012). This seems far better because the courts will work mutually to normalize the offender and this allows them never to possess the stigma of being a criminal. The offender can find a job without the trouble of their record pursuing them. Therefore having customized courts and healing programs, and the individual work together to help treatment is more detailed in comparison to having an individual take on full responsibility or getting the state undertake lone responsibility. Working individually, neither party can be trusted to make the right or logical options for the prisoners, thus a binary response is needed for joint responsibility and oversight.


Megan Comfort (2008). THE VERY BEST Seven Years I Coulda Done: The Reconstruction of Imprisonment as Rehabilitation. In Pat Carlen, Imaginary Fines, Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Pp. 252-274. Coursepack.

Mona Lynch (2000). Rehabilitation as Rhetoric: THE PERFECT of Reformation in Modern day Parole Discourse and Methods. Punishment & Society 2(1): 40-65. Stable URL.

Kelly Hannah-Moffat and Paula Maurutto (2012). Moving and Targeted Forms of Penal Governance: Bail, Punishment, and Specialized Courts. Theoretical Criminology 16(2): 201-219. Stable URL.

Rehabilitation. (2009). Retrieved from http://www. thefreedictionary. com/rehabilitation

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment