This paper examines rising crime rates, findings on the relative effectiveness of deterrence and rehabilitation, and the rise of a civil rights movement in correction, all of which have led to greater emphasis on deterrence and incapacitation and less emphasis on rehabilitation in correctional philosophy and practice. The conclusiveness of the findings that "nothing rehabilitates" and "deterrence works" is questioned. A more careful reading of existing evidence leads to no decisive conclusion on the relative effectiveness of these two philosophies of correction. Much of the failure of rehabilitative programs to date stems from programs limited in duration and quality and evaluated for their ability to alter lifestyles dramatically; many that have been shown to be failures are the result of an inadequate tailoring to offender problems. The great increase in economic crimes points to the need to improve the economic opportunities of offenders rather than altering personality. The civil rights movement in correction alerts us to the need for curbs on certain types of rehabilitative programs, but it should not force us to abandon all attempts at rehabilitation. Adherence to a strict deterrence philosophy because of its economic and humanistic cost is questioned. Finally, a more careful application of rehabilitative programs and their continued use are called for as one approach to the crime problem.
