Abstract
As may be expected from two authoritative writers in the field, this Reader is an excellent compendium of 98 essays on the subject of rehabilitation. Offenders or Citizens? questions the moral integrity of societies that use prison and punishment as the dominant response to crime, and argues powerfully for the restoration of rehabilitation in the community as the ‘leitmotif of criminal justice’ (p. 299). Priestley and Vanstone are ‘unashamedly anti-punishment’ (p. 297). Their intention with this text is to furnish debate about how societies can offer effective rehabilitation to those who offend. The main aim of this book is to dislodge imprisonment from its central position in the criminal justice system and offer a revised ‘citizen theory’ of rehabilitation and probation for the 21st century. Thus, the editors join other criminal justice commentators (e.g. Raynor and Robinson, 2009; Ward and Maruna, 2007) in their call for a ‘re-establishment of a concept currently lost in the fog of punitive rhetoric’ (p. 1).
The book boasts an impressive assortment of contributions, ranging from philosophical giants (such as Beccaria and CS Lewis) to distinguished intellectual scholars and practitioners from the realms of philosophy, psychology, sociology and anthropology, social work and law, to authors who themselves have been the recipients of rehabilitative efforts within the criminal justice system and yet whose voices are often excluded in the literature (such as Jimmy Boyle and John McVicar). It is a highly accessible Reader in that most of the texts are just two or three pages in length, and each extract has a reference to the origins of the writing. Among some of the entries one might expect, space has also been given to statements from transatlantic popular culture, such as Mac Davies’ song ‘In the ghetto’ (originally entitled ‘The vicious circle’), which was made famous by Elvis Presley. Doubtless it is a unique and eclectic collection of readings, and there is a debate to be had about what has been omitted from the discussion. However, the editors make clear in their overview of the book that their choices are not exhaustive, but reflect their own interests, knowledge, experiences and biases. In my opinion, they have chosen well and have brought together a lively and diverse range of contributions that represent more than one side of the debate about rehabilitation.
The extracts included in the book cover a 200-year period which has been divided into three chronological sections. Section one presents an informed picture of the early trajectory of rehabilitation. It begins by exploring the tensions between religion and science in the late 18th and early 19th centuries through the writings of Beccaria and Bentham on the moral problem of punishment, before focusing the reader’s attention on the roots of probation (or rehabilitative) work through the principle of ‘recognizance’ and its practical application in the courts on both sides of the Atlantic. The debate between freewill and total determinism emerges, culminating in the compromise position illustrated by an extract from Raymond Saleilles’ 1911 publication entitled ‘The individualization of punishment’, that life chances are not equal and that individual freedom and moral responsibility might vary from one person to another. Practice examples (such as Rankin’s ‘Difficult cases’) and theoretical frameworks (e.g. Glueck’s ‘Principles of a rational penal code’) from the late 19th century to mid-20th century, provide a detailed history of the professionalization of rehabilitation. The dominant role of psychological perspectives and the emergence of casework in the practice of probation are central to much of this discussion. Notably, many of the excerpts exemplify a strand of rehabilitative effort that has woven its way through to the 21st century, namely the importance of the relational element of probation practice as a basis for effective supervision or rehabilitation (see, for example, Appleton, 2010; Burnett and McNeill, 2005). Overall, section one is important because the extracts highlight the conflicts that exist between the philosophies of punishment and rehabilitation and provide material for debate on the very nature of criminal justice, the purpose of punishment and the meaning of rehabilitation.
Section two – modern trends and forms – deals with the debates concerning punishment and rehabilitation during the latter part of the 20th century, an era characterized by significant expansions of the prison populations in the UK and USA and the decline of rehabilitation as the prevailing paradigm of penal policy. In this section, the extracts reveal the theoretical, ethical and empirical challenges to rehabilitation that were advanced during this period, including CS Lewis’s lively attack on ‘The humanitarian theory of punishment’ (pp. 116–118) and Barbara Wooton’s criticism of psychoanalytic explanations of crime and a ‘psychiatric approach to social work’ (p. 119). The editors also chart the emergence of the justice model, together with a growing concern among academics and policymakers about the efficacy of probation in relation to reducing reoffending. In light of such criticism, alternative practice frameworks are explored, including the social work model and the non-treatment paradigm. Of further interest, Priestley and Vanstone report a wide range of initiatives developed by probation areas that continued to uphold the principle and practice of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system, despite the rise in punitive rhetoric and responses to crime. These include sex offender groups, Heimlerian counselling, restorative justice, day training centres and the arrival of cognitive behavioural approaches as part of the ‘What Works?’ phenomenon. These excerpts and efforts reflecting frontline penal practice, combined with personal narratives presented from ex-prisoners, all stand in stark contrast to Feeley and Simon’s portrayal of an emerging ‘new penology’ (p. 197) and the development of a more punitive attitude towards the role of punishment.
The third section asks large questions about the extent to which rehabilitation can be restored and re-established at the heart of the penal enterprise in the 21st century. The readings that have been assembled by the editors are designed to further this debate and throw glimmers of light on what kind of rehabilitative justice might work. A commitment to the reduction of harm is seen to be paramount, and examples are given of how prison methods can be transformed, including a ‘just community’ (p. 228) approach to custody in which staff and prisoners have joint responsibility for upholding rules and settling conflicts; also, ‘locked residential colleges’ (p. 270) whereby academics from Boston University have volunteered their time to teach in prisons. The main focus of this section, however, is on the future of probation as the primary vehicle for rehabilitation. The editors urge practitioners to ‘go back to basics’ (p. 214) and highlight the importance of working with people as individuals through a wide range of articles on morality, rights, active participation and informed consent. The implications of two overlapping paradigms – community justice and restorative justice – for a restored rehabilitation approach are also considered through excerpts on, for example, the politics of redress, the peacemaking approach and problem-solving justice. In addition, this section encompasses texts from three of the most significant theoretical and methodological developments within the field of rehabilitation and probation in recent years, that is, ‘What Works?’, ‘Desistance’ and ‘Re-entry’, all of which lend weight to the editors’ thesis represented in section three, and show promise for re-establishing rehabilitation in 21st-century corrections. In drawing together the threads from this section, the editors make a persuasive case for a ‘citizen model’ of rehabilitation and use the extracts specifically to map a way forward for policy makers and practitioners in the field. Central to this vision of rehabilitation is a humane criminal justice system that promotes a rhetoric of ‘inclusion, education and optimism about self-change towards active citizenship’ (p. 300).
In conclusion, Offenders or Citizens? provides a fascinating set of perspectives on rehabilitation that will be of great interest to practitioners, policymakers, scholars and students in criminal justice. Together with Priestley and Vanstone’s stimulating commentary, this collection of readings represents a robust challenge to politicians, academics and penal reformers, calling on them to think beyond the prison and punishment paradigm and to re-establish rehabilitation as a legitimate and effective response to crime. It is particularly timely given recent debates about the role of criminal justice within the UK (see Cameron, 2012; Clarke, 2010; Grayling, 2012) and the extent to which there will be a ‘revolution’ in the rehabilitation of offenders and a concerted effort by government to limit the use of imprisonment.