ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the complex conflict that exists in the current legislation between general and individual preventive considerations, between punishment and treatment. Thus, although the aim of a variety of correctional treatments was predominantly of individual preventive character, the resulting effects were mainly negative. A logical development in the direction would involve integrating the social and correctional services. The chapter shows that the effects of probation with institutional treatment were more harmful than those of probation without institutional treatment and that the effects of probation were more harmful than those of conditional sentences. The treatment ideology has been compromised through the use of treatment theory to legitimate punishment measures. The Committee on Correctional Reform considered that the use of the housing grants was not guided by any unified planning. The Commission on Correctional Reform argued against raising the remuneration of lay supervisors by saying that it was better to give priority to new appointments in the non-institutional services.
