ABSTRACT
As Cullen and Applegate (1998) imply, the most disheartening aspect of these “get tough” policies is their dismissal of the importance of programming designed to rehabilitate offenders. Cullen and Applegate further question whether this rejection of rehabilitation is sound public policy. As many states have found, simply locking up offenders and “throwing away the key” has proven to be a very expensive approach to crime control. This approach is also very limited, as the vast majority of offenders will one day return to society. Many will return at best unchanged, and at worst with many more problems and intensified needs for service ( Petersilia, 1992 ). For those advocating incapacitation, one must also ask what should be done with offenders while they are incarcerated? Some scholars, such as Cullen and Applegate, do not believe that incapacitation and rehabilitation are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, because the vast majority of offenders are supervised in the community at differing degrees of intensity, it is even more important that we develop programs that work toward reducing recidivism.
