This chapter first shows the equivocal nature of the definition of rehabilitation or desistance. It then provides what it sees to be the rudiments that the varying approaches to the concept have in common. These common assumptions mirror the commitments of the other common justifications for detention: social conservatism, dualism, and the ever-present threat of coercive force for those who fail to participate or do so in an uncooperative manner. The chapter then critiques what it sees to be the four dominant expressions of the rehabilitative philosophy: Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR); the Good Lives Model (GLM); the virtuous prison; and restorative justice. Although the chapter is critical of all four of the above formulations, an effort is made to show how various aspects of the conversion paradigm are evident in these approaches. Thus, the chapter is more an invitation to dialogue and to expand the moral horizon of rehabilitative discourse than a dismissive diatribe.