The Task Force for Corrections - Term Paper Example

These approaches have been proven ineffective because they ignored the empirical evidence on what effects offender change. As Latessa, Cullen & Gendreau (2002) note, these practices are examples of “correctional quackery.” Second, after reviewing existing evidence, the report recommends that rehabilitation should be Ohio’s guiding correctional theory. In this regard, this report initially examines the limits of competing approaches. Following this discussion, the case for reaffirming rehabilitation is presented.

The principle of just deserts and retribution should be sufficient to deter an offender from committing a crime. This is not saying that incarceration is an effective deterrent to crime or offending. The fact that crimes and offending have been increasing despite the punishments and incarcerations associated with crimes and offending should be adequate enough to show that incarceration has a limited effect on deterrence. According to Muhlhausen (2010), the principle of deterrence seeks to make crimes costly so fewer crimes can occur.

On examining the incarceration data of 1972-1993, however, Lynch concluded (1999, p. 359) that imprisonment provides “no evidence of deterrence at the aggregate level for the US” on crimes (1999, p. 359). According to Lynch (1999), the conclusion remained true even if cross-sectional analysis are used for crime and imprisonment trends for 1980 through 1991. Rehabilitation focuses on the character of the offender. Both offenders and non-offenders alike live in a society where they are not observed 100% of the time.

Control-oriented programs do not change the character of the offender. On this alone, control-oriented supervision programs will fail as supervisors lose control over the offender, especially after having served prison time. The principle right after just desert and retribution cannot be incapacitation because incapacitation is adequately covered in the principle of just deserts