Religion and rehabilitation

Criminal Justice Ethics

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 34-43

  Skotnicki, Andrew ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959768769     PISSN: 0731129X     EISSN: 19375948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.1996.9992017     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. I use the Niebuhr quote for its poetic appeal and to underscore the diminishment of religion within the correctional milieu, not as a pretext to argue a privileged position for Christianity within the religious spectrum. I will argue that religious conversion involves a transcendent dimension that cannot be encapsulated within the procedural canon of the sciences. That transcendent dimension, while religious, is by no means exclusively Christian.
2. H.R. NIEBUHR, THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN AMERICA 183, 191 (1937).
3. D. GARLAND, PUNISHMENT AND MODERN SOCIETY 16-17 (1990).
4. T. PALMER, THE RE-EMERGENCE OF CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTION 5 (1992).
5. F. ALLEN, THE DECLINE OF THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL 2 (1981).
6. B. HUDSON, JUSTICE THROUGH PUNISHMENT 3 (1987).
7. D. GARLAND, PUNISHMENT AND WELFARE (1985)
8. D. ROTHMAN, CONSCIENCE AND CONVENIENCE (1980).
9. B. HUDSON, supra note 5, at 7.
10. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, REAFFIRMING REHABILITATION 34 (1982).
11. Ted Palmer calls rehabilitation growth centered intervention. Although a consistent proponent of the offendercentered goal of treatment, he seeks to locate such a goal within a framework of external controls aimed at the primary end of corrections: the increased protection of society.
12. T. PALMER, supra note 3, at 22.
13. Gendreau & Ross, The Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s, 4 JUST. Q. 395 (1987).
14. D. ROTHMAN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE ASYLUM (1971).
15. O.F. LEWIS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN PRISONS AND PRISON CUSTOMS (1967)
16. W.D. LEWIS, FROM NEWGATE TO DANNEMORA (1965)
17. Vitiello, Reconsidering Rehabilitation, 65 TULANE L. REV. 1039-1040 (1991).
18. H.R. NIEBUHR, supra note 1.
19. Perhaps the earliest advocate of the modern, secular concept of rehabilitation was Richard Vaux, for many decades the chief inspector of the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. He fought for a penitentiary discipline in which each prisoner is treated individually, strengthened to effort for regaining lost moral and educational health; brought within the direct personal influence of reformatory or curative treatment and placed in the most accessible relation to those creative forces which in operation change the moral constitution.
20. R. VAUX, PENAL: AN ELEMENT IN SOCIAL SCIENCE 26 (1862).
21. D. ROTHMAN, supra note 6
22. A VON, PAST AND FUTURE CRIMES 5 (1985).
23. Z. BROCKWAY, ELMIRA ANNUAL REPORT 7-8 (1881).
24. Martinson, What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform, 35 PUBLIC INTEREST (1974).
25. S. WALKER, TAMING THE SYSTEM 114 (1993)
26. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 268-69.
27. Id. at 257
28. Cullen, Cullen & Wozniak, Is Rehabilitation Dead? The Myth of the Punitive Public, 16 J. CRIM. JUST. 314 (1988).
29. Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau & Cullen, Does Correctional Treatment Work?, 28 CRIMINOLOGY (1990) [hereinafter cited as Does Correctional Treatment Work?]
30. Gendreau & Ross, supra note 9
31. M. MCMAHON, THE PERSISTENT PRISON? RETHINKING DECARCERATION AND PENAL REFORM (1992)
32. T. PALMER, supra note 3
33. Van Voorhis, Correctional Effectiveness: The High Cost of Ignoring Success, 51 FED. PROBATION (1987)
34. Vitiello, supra note 11.
35. Does Correctional Treatment Work?, supra note 19, at 370.
36. This is not meant to assume that retribution and rehabilitation must work at cross-purposes. For a view that argues the compatibility of the two concepts
37. Vitiello, supra note 11.
38. D. ROTHMAN, supra note 6, at- 419-420.
39. D. GARLAND, supra note 2, at 252
40. F. ALLEN, supra note 4, at 20-29.
41. AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE (1971)
42. A. VON HIRSCH, DOING JUSTICE (1976).
43. B. HUDSON, supra note 5, at xi-xii.
44. Does Correctional Treatment Work?, supra note 19, at 424
45. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 256
46. J. Braithwaite & P. PETTIT, NOT JUST DESERTS 6 (1990).
47. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 247
48. L. DEWOLF, CRIME AND JUSTICE 58 (1975).
49. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 256.
50. B. HUDSON, supra note 5, at 34-35.
51. Does Correctional Treatment Work?, supra note 19, at 384.
52. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 280.
53. L. DEWOLF, supra note 26, at 60-65
54. K. MENNINGER, THE CRIME OF PUNISHMENT (1968)
55. T. PALMER, supra note 3, at 2.
56. J. FEINBERG, DOING & DESERVING 268-69 (1970).
57. J. BRAITHWAITE, CRIME, SHAME AND REINTEGRATION (1989)
58. J. Braithwaite & P. PETTIT, supra note 25
59. Burkett & Ward, A Note on Perceptual Deterrence, Religiously Based Moral Condemnation, and Social Control, 31 CRIMINOLOGY (1993).
60. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 20.
61. D. MCKIM, HEREDITY AND HUMAN PROGRESS (1901).
62. Rafter, Criminal Anthropology in the United States, 30 CRIMINOLOGY 541-542 (1992).
63. Gendreau & Ross, supra note 9, at 350. Von Hirsch and Maher suggest that even were the public willing to pay for the treatment resources necessary to fulfill the requirements of the rehabilitative ethos under discussion, target programs seem to require an experimental setting and selected subgroups of offenders, carefully screened for amenability which necessarily limits the scope for rehabilitation. Palmer, his enthusiasm for rehabilitation notwithstanding, writes that as of 1990 no categories (types) of programs exist that usually. . . produce large recidivism reductions with typical, heterogeneous client samples."
64. von Hirsch & Maher, Should Penal Rehabilitationism be Revived? 11 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 25, 26 (1992);
65. T. PALMER, supra note 3, at 6.
66. J. BRAITHWAITE, supra note 33, at 30, 84, 10.
67. K. MANNHEIM, IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA 16 (1936)
68. C. TAYLOR,SOURCES OF THE SELF 10 (1989).
69. J. Braithwaite & P. PETTIT, supra note 25, at 38.
70. W. CONN, CHRISTIAN CONVERSION 116-17(1986)
71. E. ERIKSON, IDENTITY: YOUTH AND CRISIS 259-60 (1968)
72. L. KOHLBERG, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT II 173-77 (1981)
73. B. LONERGAN, METHOD IN THEOLOGY 238 (1972)
74. P. TILLICH, DYNAMICS OF FAITH 124 (1957).
75. W. CONN, supra note 41, at 222
76. J. FOWLER, STAGES OF FAITH (1981).
77. W. CONN, supra note 41, at 217, 219
78. L. KOHLBERG, supra note 41, at 250.
79. W. JAMES, THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 165 (1961)
80. K.F. MORRISON, UNDERSTANDING CONVERSION 35 (1992)
81. W. CONN, supra note 41, at 7.
82. B. LONERGAN, supra note 41, at 237-238.
83. K.F. MORRISON, supra note 44, at xv-xvi
84. B. LONERGAN, supra note 41, at 240.
85. P. TILLICH, supra note 41, at 112.
86. K.F. MORRISON, supra note 44, at 17, 125
87. L. RAMBO, UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS CONVERSION 114 (1993)
88. P. TILLICH, supra note 41, at 117
89. C. ULLMAN, THE TRANSFORMED SELF: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS CONVERSION xviii (1989).
90. K.F. MORRISON, supra note 44, at xvi.
91. W. JAMES, supra note 44, at 178-79
92. W. PROUDFOOT, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 52 (1985).
93. K.F. MORRISON, supra note 44, at 23
94. L. RAMBO, supra note 48, at 170.
95. W. CONN, supra note 41, at 25
96. B. LONERGAN, supra note 41, at 241
97. P. TILLICH, supra note 41, at 114.
98. L. KOHLBERG, supra note 41, at 496.
99. Here I rely on the thought of Tillich and his concept of ultimate concern."
100. P. TILLICH, supra note 41, at 99-112.
101. The fact is we do not have sufficient evidence to support the conventional claim that religious practice failed to reform or rehabilitate inmates in institutions where its dominance waned nearly one hundred and fifty years ago. Current scholarship, in its rebuke of the penitentiary, often conflates fiscal impropriety, sadistic treatment of inmates by staff and general institutional misdirection with the quite visible religious presence in the institutions. The claim may be true but there is not enough data to support this contention with confidence.
102. F. ALLEN, supra note 4, at 13
103. F. CULLEN & K. GILBERT, supra note 8, at 121
104. A. HIRSCH, THE RISE OF THE PENITENTIARY 68 (1992)
105. Hoekema, Punishment, the Criminal Law, and Christian Social Ethics, 5 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 48, 50 (1986)
106. D. GARLAND, supra note 2, at 26
107. J.Q. WILSON, THE MORAL SENSE 220 (1993).
108. E. SHILS, THE CALLING OF SOCIOLOGY AND OTHER ESSAYS ON THE PURSUIT OF LEARNING 88 (1980).
109. K.F. MORRISON, supra note 44, at 28.
110. L. RAMBO, supra note 48, at 11.
111. P. TILLICH, supra note 41, at 126-27.
112. Duff, Punishment And Penance-A Reply to Harrison, 62 ARISTOTELIAN SOC'Y, Supplementary Volume 159 (1988).
113. R.A. DUFF, TRIALS AND PUNISHMENTS 7-8 (1986).
114. Duff, supra note 61, at 156-57.
115. Id. at 162.
116. Murphy, Forgiveness, Mercy, and the Retributive Emotions, 7 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 7 (1988).
117. Audi, The Separation of Church and State and the Obligations of Citizenship, 18 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 295 (1989).
118. J.Q. WILSON, supra note 56, at 108.
119. Bainbridge, The Religious Ecology of Deviance, 54 AM. SOC. REV. 292 (1989).
120. Burkett & Ward, supra note 33, at 123.
121. Burkett & Ward, Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look, 13 J. FOR Sci. STUDY RELIGION 460 (1974).
122. R.B. FREEMAN & H. HOLZER, THE BLACK YOUTH EMPLOYMENT CRISIS 372-73 (1986).
123. Morris, Murphy on Forgiveness, 7 CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 16 (1988).
124. Id. at 17.
125. Bracy, Addiction: not curable, but 'very treatable', 26 TENN. B.J. (1990)
126. Room, Healing Ourselves and Our Planet: the emergence and nature of a generalized twelve-step consciousness, 19 CONTEMPORARY DRUG PROBS. (1992)
127. Smith, The Criminal Justice System and Alcohol Rehabilitation, 18 AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND J. CRIMINOLOGY (1985).