ABSTRACT

Tracing the meaning of rehabilitation as a legislative goal requires tracing the history of correctional philosophies. When looking at the analysis of legislative changes as a whole, four patterns emerge: rehabilitation is for achieving public safety; rehabilitation might require some version of indeterminate sentencing; reorganization might be needed for rehabilitation to succeed; and changes in purpose do not seem to change organizational practices. Rehabilitation was also viewed as an ongoing event and combined several theories of rehabilitation. If rehabilitation was an accomplishment, then the need to punish, assist, supervise, treat, or otherwise control convicted individuals ends when they meet the stated requirements. Changes also occurred to the desired end goals, particularly in the time periods where rehabilitation was supposed to play a prominent role. Prisons can be sites for rehabilitation, but only if the inmate chooses to participate in appropriate programs and only if such programs are available.