One of the issues that has influenced correctional policy since the 1970s has been the evaluation of the outcome of correctional treatment programs. While the public supports the concept of rehabilitation and correctional officials value them as effective means of changing inmates, there should at least exist an expectation that those programs will reduce recidivism. The ‘nothing works doctrine’, derived from Martinson's article, contributed in the disappearance of expectation and faith for correctional treatment programs. The reasons why Martinson's article of 'nothing works' have been so influential to academic as well as societal and political areas are explained in various respects: social and political climates of the 1960s-1970s characterized by anti-war moods, racial problems, poverty issues, and women's liberation, the changes of middle-class & liberal criminologists' attitudes towards crime and crime control, the politicization of crime problems, the domination of sociological approaches in criminology, and the lack of knowledge and skills in crime predictions by academics. In the US, rehabilitation as a correctional ideology had been retreating since early 1970s and almost disappeared in the mid 1980s as a goal of punishment, indicating that the retribution paradigm had returned. It is persuasive that such shifts resulted from political and societal reactions of conservatives and liberals toward crime, and are shown in correctional areas. In this context, some scholars has said that the society must move beyond the naivete and exuberance that marked the advocacy of rehabilitation in the 1950s and early 1960s and beyond the cynicism and pessimism that has reigned for much of the last three decades.(Palmer, 1992) This notion has received widespread support. New evaluation studies, including meta-analyses done after Martinson's article in 1974, indicate that correctional treatment programs could be effective in reducing criminal recidivism. And they have demonstrated that juvenile correctional intervention is more effective than intervention programs designed for adults. It has been known that behavioral/cognitive treatment, on average, produces larger effects than other treatment. Intensive, in-prison drug treatment is effective, especially when combined with community aftercare. Education, vocational training, and prison labor programs have modest effects on reducing criminal recidivism and increase positive behavior in prison. Evidence on sex offender treatment intervention program is less positive, probably because the target population is heterogeneous and treatment needs to be tailored to specific offender deficits.(Gaes et al., 1999) The results of meta-analyses seem to show that the programs for probationers or juvenile offenders with community aftercare are inclined to be more effective. There have been major theoretical and methodological advances in the juvenile and adult correctional treatment literature since Martinson's assessment study. Expecially, adaptation of the psychological learning model and meta-analysis as a statistical technique to criminology and corrections have been known to contribute in formulating principles for successful treatment programs though those principles need further clarification and empirical assessment. The following are suggested as principles of successful correctional treatment: linkage with criminogenic needs, multimodal programs for various deficits, matching client learning styles with staff teaching styles, treatment based on risk differentiation, providing skills oriented to cognitive-behavioral treatment, implementing programs with continuity of care and sufficient dosage, and involvement in both program development and evaluation by researchers.
Postmodern criminology is based upon the belief that past criminological approaches have failed to realistically assess the true causes of crime and have therefore failed offer workable solutions for crime control or if they have, that such theories and solutions may have been appropriate at one time but no longer apply to the postmodern era. It challenges and debunks existing perspectives on crime and crime control. Upon such assumptions, the article examines how we conceive of penal policy or prison in contrast to how it is conventionally understood, and outlines what an alternative direction might look like. It introduces peacemaking criminology, constitutive criminology and restorative justice for the development of a new “replacement discourse”. Peacemaking criminology holds that crime-control agencies and the citizens they serve should work together to alleviate social problems and human suffering and thus reduce crime. The main purpose of criminology is to promote a peaceful, just society rather than standing on empirical analysis of data, by drawing its inspiration from religious and philosophical teachings. Constitutive criminology builds on the belief that crime and its control cannot be separated from the totality of the structural and cultural contexts in which it is produced. Given this interrelated nature of social structure and human agents and their social and cultural productions in the coproduction of crime, it trys to promote a just policy of reconstruction through replacement discourse which is directed toward the dual process of deconstructing prevailing structures of meaning and displacing them with new conceptions, which convey alternative meaning. Restorative justice has been practiced as an alternative to existing justice system beyond philosophical teaching or religious ideology in various countries. It seeks to attain a balance between the legitimate needs of the community, the offender, and the victim. The healing of all parties involves many aspects, ranging from victim assistance initiatives to legislation supporting victim's compensation. It follows such guidelines that community are victims, we use punishment to pay back the community, we combine punishment with help, and we give community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions.
Boot camp programs, frequently called "shock incarceration" programs, appeared in the early eighties as an alternative to traditional correctional programs. Offenders in these programs spend a relatively short period of time in a quasi-military program involving physical training, drill, manual labor, and strict discipline. Since 1983, 49 boot camp prisons have been opened in 33 State correctional jurisdictions, in addition to many programs developed and being considered in cities and counties, and for juveniles. The past decade has witnessed considerable interest in the concept of boot camps as a potentially effective intermediate sanction for certain types of Offenders. The research findings indicate that boot camps may be a useful alternative sanction to keep first offenders from offending again over the short terms, but that the long-term effects on recidivism or reduction of cost and prison crowding have not yet been determined. There is growing evidence that cost savings can be achieved if boot camps are used as an alternative to confinement. Because shock incarceration programs confine offenders for relatively short periods (3-6months), they may not be able to prepare the participants fully for readjustment to the community. More follow-up for participants in terms of aftercare services - employment assistance, drug treatment, etc - may, therefore, be an essential aspect of successful programs. Although boot camp programs are expected to remain popular for now, it is not known if growth can be sustained. Among the factors affecting such growth are political and popular interest, success in achieving program goals, and legal issues associated with the selection of program participants.