Is rationalization good for the soul? Resisting " responsibilization" in corrections and the courts

Shadd Maruna*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A fundamental tenet of much rehabilitation practice is that offenders need to be made accountable for and to accept unmitigated responsibility for their criminal offenses. If unwilling to do so, an individual faces harsh consequences including longer prison stays or the revocation of one's probation. The courts have generally accepted the aphorism that the first step in rehabilitation is admission of one's problem. However, little research supports this notion. Indeed, quite the contrary, considerable evidence seems to suggest that the practice of "responsibilization" in the prison system is actually more likely to stigmatize individuals and generate higher rates of recidivism. To be made liberating, confession must be accompanied by absolution rather than condemnation.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationPsychological Jurisprudence
Subtitle of host publicationCritical Explorations in Law, Crime, and Society
PublisherState University of New York Press
Pages179-199
Number of pages21
ISBN (Print)0791461513, 9780791461518
Publication statusPublished - 01 Dec 2004
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Social Sciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is rationalization good for the soul? Resisting " responsibilization" in corrections and the courts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this