Rehabilitative sentencing collapsed under attacks from left, right, and empirical research.

Evidence

Beginning in the early 1970s, this emphasis on rehabilitation came under attack. Conservatives charged that it promoted excessive leniency in sentencing and that punishment should serve the purposes of retribution and incapacitation rather than rehabilitation. Liberals attacked the potential for unfairness and discrimination in a system under which offenders committing the same crime could serve widely disparate sentences, especially when those deciding sentences (judges and parole boards) did not have to explain or justify their choices. Social science research also undermined the case for rehabilitation, demonstrating that imprisonment rarely promoted rehabilitation and that, even when it did, officials could not reliably determine which offenders had been rehabilitated. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1910

Categorization

  • DEEPTHINKING: An unusually clean three-front collapse explanation: ideology from both poles plus measurement failure converging to overturn a dominant paradigm.
  • XREF: Mirrors the ch. 1900-09 rehabilitation model description and connects to the general theme of fads/paradigms in penal policy. — connects to: Legal standards for insanity measurably shape both plea frequency and outcomes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1896; Failed penal reform collapses back into harsher punishment; Penal reform fails whenever it is detached from general social progress — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 969 (+4 more)

Broader Connections