The Scope and Purposes of Correctional Treatment

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, corrections, correctional treatment, punishment, rehabilitation, and models of treatment are defined and explained. The history of correctional treatment is reviewed, describing the economic, social, and political factors that have an effect on the emphasis that is given to either punishment or treatment of criminal offenders in a society. The use of the “medical” model for treatment of adult and juvenile offenders is contrasted with the use of the “just deserts ” and “justice” models.

Keywords

Corrections Counseling Treatment Rehabilitation Correctional treatment Punishment Justice model Restorative justice Correctional counselor Assessment 

References

  1. Adams, S. (1976). Evaluation: A way out of rhetoric. In R. Martinson, T. Palmer, & S. Adams (Eds.), Rehabilitation, recidivism, and research (pp. 75–91). Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, F. (1964). The borderland of criminal justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1999). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co..Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Hogue, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonta, J. (1995). The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7(3), 34–37.Google Scholar
  6. Champion, D. J. (1990). Probation and parole in the United States. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Fogel, D. (1975). We are the living proof. Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  8. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3), 349–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamm, M. (1987). Determinate sentencing in Indiana: An analysis of the impact of the justice model. Unpublished paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meeting, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar
  11. Hubbard, D. (2007). Getting the most out of correctional treatment: Testing the responsivity principle on male and female offenders. In Federal probation (pp. 2–8). Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.Google Scholar
  12. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  13. Martinson, R. (1974, Spring). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 25–54Google Scholar
  14. Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 9(2), 243–258.Google Scholar
  15. McCold, P. (2004). An experiment on police-based restorative justice: The Bethlehem (PA) project. In P. C. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (5th ed., pp. 9–14). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  16. Moore, C., & Miethe, T. (1987). Can sentencing reform work? A four-year evaluation of determinate sentencing in Minnesota. Unpublished paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meeting, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar
  17. Palmer, T. (1978). Correctional intervention and research: Current issues and future prospects. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Palmer, T. (2000). The “effectiveness” issue today: An overview. In P. C. Kratcoski (Ed.), Correctional counseling and treatment (3rd ed., pp. 15–30). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  19. Reid, S. T. (1976). Crime and criminology. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  20. Seiter, R. P. (1990). Federal prison industries: Meeting the challenge of growth. Federal Prison Journal, 1(3), 11–15.Google Scholar
  21. Sutherland, E., & Cressey, D. B. (1974). Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  22. Wakefield, P. (1985). The sentencing process: Redefining objectives. In J. Bentevoglio (Ed.), State laws and procedures affecting drug trafficking control. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Kratcoski
    • 1
  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations