FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1965552021> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1965552021 abstract "Penal rehabilitationism has been in eclipse since the early 1970s.[1] Treatment efforts seemed to offer only limited hope for success.[2] Relying on treatment to decide the sentence seemed also to lead to unjust results--for example, to excessive intrusion into offenders' lives in the name of cure.[3] Recently, however, there have been hints of an attempted revival. Some researchers claim striking new successes in treatment techniques. These successes, Ted Palmer concludes in a recent survey of treatment methods, suggest that rehabilitative intervention has gained increased moral and philosophical legitimacy, and that it is no longer the case that rehabilitation should be secondary to punishment...whether for short- or long-term goals.[4] Some penologists--for example, Francis Cullen and Karen Gilbert--argue that a revival of the penal treatment ethic could help lead to a gentler and more caring penal system.[5] Interestingly, such arguments sometimes come from penologists of the left[6]--who once had been so critical of treatment-based punishments.[7] There is by no means unanimity, however, even from these sources. Some researchers--for example, John Whitehead and Steven Lab in their recent survey of juvenile treatments[8]--continue to be quite pessimistic about those treatments' effects. Some writers of the left--for example, Thomas Mathiesen[9]--still strongly resist treatment as the basis for sanctioning. Nevertheless, there is enough ferment to prompt the question in our title, Should penal rehabilitationism be revived? Reinstatement of a treatment ethic would raise a number of questions. How much more is known about the treatment of offenders now than was known a few years ago? How often can treatment give us answers about how severely to sentence convicted offenders? Is treatment really as humane as it is made out to be? How fair is it to base the sentence on an offender's supposed rehabilitative needs? Rehabilitationism went into eclipse some years ago partly because it could not answer those questions satisfactorily. Are better answers available today? We approach these issues from heterogeneous viewpoints. One of us (von Hirsch) is a philosophical liberal, and has long been an advocate of the desert model.[10] The other (Maher) has a more left and feminist orientation,[11] and is skeptical of a retributive penal ethic. In our present discussion of the new rehabilitationism, we will not be assuming another articulated sentencing philosophy. What we agree on are the questions, not the answers. Questions of Effectiveness During the late 60s and the 70s, critics of penal treatment sometimes were tempted to assert that nothing works. The phrase now haunts them, and confuses analysis. It implies that the main problem of treatment is that of establishing its effectiveness; and that treatment can be declared a success once some programs are shown to work. Both assumptions are erroneous. Even when treatments succeed, their use to decide sentencing questions raises important normative questions (discussed below). And occasional successes are not enough. The last large-scale survey and analysis of treatments, undertaken by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences,[12] is over a decade old. It was distinctly pessimistic in its conclusions: when subjected to close scrutiny, few programs seemed to succeed in reducing offender recidivism. Since then there has been continued experimentation, and successes have been reported.[13] Some treatment advocates, such as Paul Gendreau and Robert Ross, have suggested that such findings show that rehabilitation has been revivified.[14] Perhaps, however, caution is in order. The extent of recent treatment successes remains very much in dispute--as witness a recent debate among researchers who have surveyed juvenile treatment programs.[15] A source of continuing difficult is that the whys of treatment (that is, the processes by which successes are achieved) are seldom understood. …" @default.
• W1965552021 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1965552021 creator A5031287339 @default.
• W1965552021 creator A5058403763 @default.
• W1965552021 date "1992-01-01" @default.
• W1965552021 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1965552021 title "Should penal rehabilitationism be revived?" @default.
• W1965552021 cites W1966676978 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W1988593879 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2003694044 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2017374803 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2022790128 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2044183129 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2078289631 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2096257455 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2124413022 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2139328319 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2161846087 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2163670060 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2168803522 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2500223970 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W2802178464 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W3125011439 @default.
• W1965552021 cites W4234727473 @default.
• W1965552021 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.1992.9991908" @default.
• W1965552021 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W1965552021 type Work @default.
• W1965552021 sameAs 1965552021 @default.
• W1965552021 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W1965552021 countsByYear W19655520212013 @default.
• W1965552021 countsByYear W19655520212016 @default.
• W1965552021 countsByYear W19655520212019 @default.
• W1965552021 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1965552021 hasAuthorship W1965552021A5031287339 @default.
• W1965552021 hasAuthorship W1965552021A5058403763 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C2779295839 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C2781423480 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConcept C9992130 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C111472728 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C118552586 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C138885662 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C144024400 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C15744967 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C17744445 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C199539241 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C2777363581 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C2779295839 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C2780665704 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C2781423480 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C46295352 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C73484699 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C77805123 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C94625758 @default.
• W1965552021 hasConceptScore W1965552021C9992130 @default.
• W1965552021 hasLocation W19655520211 @default.
• W1965552021 hasOpenAccess W1965552021 @default.
• W1965552021 hasPrimaryLocation W19655520211 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W1573654239 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W1579532924 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W1971195644 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W1972708566 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W1989601321 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2001988785 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2004484937 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2029203398 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2034305815 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2048129788 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2094764943 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2162889710 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2270385109 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2317554004 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2324705560 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W248967526 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2617399004 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W305763746 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W85494558 @default.
• W1965552021 hasRelatedWork W2739822185 @default.
• W1965552021 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1965552021 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1965552021 magId "1965552021" @default.
• W1965552021 workType "article" @default.