solved Response to Daniel Discussion For this week’s discussion we are

Response to Daniel Discussion
For this week’s discussion we are applying what we learned from Chapter 7 (Rehabilitation) in a meaningful way to clarify our understanding of the correctional system. The following paragraphs will address how the public supports early intervention and rehabilitation, while at the same time, many people are still in prison or being sent away. We will also discuss how rehabilitation and early intervention programs are not something that is more common in everyday correctional proceedings. There are barriers that prevent early intervention from being more widely used and we will identify those barriers. As with any discussion, we will provide an opposing viewpoint. In this case, we will list arguments against rehabilitation and why some people may feel this way. A Christian worldview as it relates to rehabilitation will also be discussed. Finally, we will wrap everything up with a conclusion.
Support for Rehabilitation and Early Intervention
           “Rehabilitation is the planned correctional intervention that targets for change internal and/or social criminogenic factors with the goal of reducing recidivism, and where possible, of improving other aspects of an offender’s life” (Cullen & Jonson, 2017, p.173). For rehabilitation to work, it must be well developed by the correctional system. It is imperative that the intervention focuses on the factors that are causing a person to offend. The end state is reducing recidivism and keeping society safe. Cullen & Jonson describe that a systematic approach to implementing programs based on the principles of effective intervention. In Chapter 7, they describe the Canadian model of effective intervention, known as The RNR Model. The three principles of this model are (R)isk, (N)eed, and (R)esponsivity. The need principle tells us that interventions should target the known predictors of crime and recidivism for change. The need principle bases the treatment on the offender’s criminal history and antisocial values. The second principle is responsivity. Responsivity tells us that treatment should be behavioral, social learning, and cognitive-behavioral in nature. This type of intervention is intensive and can last up to 9 months. Offenders will spend a majority of their time I these programs. The goal is to have the participants learn a set of behavioral skills that will keep them from committing crimes. The third treatment intervention is called the risk principle. According to Cullen & Jonson, this type of intervention should be used with high-risk offenders. High-risk offenders, while more hardened, have more that they can change about themselves. Not only in corrections but in other realm of human behavior, it appears that the best predictions are made through the use of actuarial-based assessment instruments (Ayers, 2007). While the RNR principles may not save society from all crime, studies have shown that when used properly, RNR intervention had a 15% lower recidivism rate than a control group that did not receive RNR intervention (Bonta et al., 2011). 
                                                        Barriers to Early Intervention and Rehabilitation
Early intervention programs seek to prevent at-risk juveniles from growing up to become criminals. Studies have shown that once someone enters the adult criminal justice system, the likelihood of recidivism is about 50% or higher. Rehabilitation and early intervention are not very common in correctional proceedings. There are several reasons for this. In an article titled, Barriers to Implementing Effective Correctional Drug Treatment Programs, Farabee et al., (1999) identify and discuss six barriers to developing effective correctional treatment. These barriers are client identification assessments, recruiting and training of staff, redeployment of correctional staff, over reliance on institutional versus therapeutic sanctions, aftercare, and coercion. Without diving too deep into each topic, the article concluded that rapid and poorly planned implementation of these treatment programs, place them at risk of being ineffective. 
                                                                               Opposing View
We cannot discuss an opposing view to rehabilitation and early intervention, without bringing up the Robert Martinson and his theory that “Nothing works”, referring to rehabilitation. Martinson’s nothing work ideas, would work to discredit anything positive about correctional treatment, and who were disparaging of anyone who would suggest that offenders could be saved (Gottfredson, 1979). Martinson believed that since no one type of program could prove to work all of the time, then nothing works in correctional treatment. This theory by Martinson caused many to abandon criminal justice research and the study of rehabilitation. While Martinson’s theory was discussed in the 1970’s, there are still critics of rehabilitation, today. Today’s critics will argue that rehabilitation techniques have not proven to end recidivism. While this is partially true, that doesn’t mean that we should completely abandon attempts to rehabilitate offenders. Another argument is that the rehabilitative ideology inevitably depreciates tailoring sentences to the seriousness of the offense. Since more severe sentences have not shown their effectiveness in reducing recidivism, their value, even in the name of justice must be questioned (Weatherburn, 1982). While researching, I found numerous arguments against rehabilitation. Cullen & Jonson provide several strong reasons in Chapter 7, as to why we should continue to rehabilitate.
                                                                             Christian Worldview
There are many references in the Bible to rehabilitation. We are all sinners and must seek forgiveness at certain times in our life. James 5:16 tells us, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, James 5:16). Ezekiel 36:26 also makes reference to rehabilitation and finding forgiveness, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Ezekiel 36:26). God promises to cleanse us from our sins, but we must turn to God in Christ and receives forgiveness. For criminal offenders, seeking forgiveness and dedicating themselves to rehabilitation, they are bringing themselves closer to God. They can also seek forgiveness through the church with confession.
                                                                                   Conclusion
In conclusion, this week’s discussion post discussed how the public supports early intervention and rehabilitation, while at the same time, many people are still in prison or being sent away. We touched on how rehabilitation and early intervention programs are not something that is more common in everyday correctional proceedings. We discussed Canadas RNR model for rehabilitation and how that model can be beneficial. We also discussed the difference between low-risk offenders and high-risk offenders as they relate to rehabilitation.  We discussed several barriers that prevent early intervention from being more widely use. As with any discussion, we discussed an opposing viewpoint, in this case, the “nothing works” theory of Robert Martinson. A Christian worldview was touched on as it relates to rehabilitation.
                                                      References
Ayers, I. (2007). Super crunchers: why thinking-by-the numbers is the new way to be smart. New York, NY: Bantam Books
Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, K. & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 11. Pp. 1127-1148
Cullen, F., & Jonson, C. (2017). Correctional theory: context and consequences. (2nd ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Gottfredson, M.R., (1979). Treatment destruction techniques. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 16. pp. 39-54
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769)
Weatherburn, D. (1982). Seven arguments against rehabilitation – an assessment of their validity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Vol.15.