Philip Bean - Rehabilitation and Deviance (Routledge Revivals)

Routledge Revivals

Rehabilitation and Deviance

First published in 1976, this book examines rehabilitation within the penal system in Britain in the 1970s. It argues that the rehabilitative ideal is not the only possible alternative to a penal policy but an option which has now become institutionalized and alien to traditional concepts of justice. Using a framework derived from the sociology of law, Philip Bean looks at aspects of rehabilitation as it is operated in the courts and in certain penal institutions. He shows how the concept of rehabilitation has had an important but harmful effect on penal policy as it is often incompatible with penal aims.

This book considers the impact that sentencing, social enquiry reports and modern prison policies have on rehabilitation. The concluding chapter asks for a return to concepts of justice and a move away from discussions about personal lives of deviant members of society.

Rehabilitation and Deviance

Philip Bean

First published in 1976

by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd

This edition first published in 2013 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

1976 Philip Bean

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Publishers Note

The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer

The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.

A Library of Congress record exists under ISBN: 76362106

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-63588-2 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-203-08589-9 (ebk)

R ADICAL S OCIAL P OLICY

GENERAL EDITOR

Vic George

Professor of Social Policy and

Administration and Social Work

University of Kent

R EHABILITATION AND DEVIANCE

Philip Bean

Department of

Applied Social Science

University of Nottingham

First published in 1976

by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd

Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane,

London EC4V 5EL and

9 Park Street,

Boston, Mass. 02108, USA

Set in IBM Press Roman by

Pentagon Print

and printed in Great Britain by

Redwood Burn Ltd

Trowbridge & Esher

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism

ISBN 0 7100 8270 3 (c)

0 7100 8271 1 (p)

It is not very fashionable for sociologists nowadays to be involved in social engineering; a more lofty detachment seems to be preferred. Yet in a curious way that same lofty detachment is a hallmark of other groups who are not always given the warmest of welcomes in sociological circles and who, like many sociologists, are not really detached at all. Detachment is all very well, but Howard Beckers pertinent question forces us to reappraise our position from time to time. Becker wanted to know whose side are we on? and the answer is I suppose likely to change at frequent intervals. In this book, I have unashamedly adopted a social engineering approach and, as will be clear from the following pages, I am not always on the side of the rehabilitationists. My position is this, that rehabilitation as it is practised in the modern penal system is not what it seems to be, and on closer examination is often incompatible with current penal aims. I can only offer tentative suggestions as to where we go from there, and hopefully others will pick up the argument and bring the debate into the open. For too long the arguments about the penal system have been assessed on the basis of labels; supporters of rehabilitation have regarded with intense suspicion anyone who opposed it, whilst opponents have regarded the other side with equal doubts. Labels seem to me to be a poor way of arriving at rational decisions.

Throughout this venture Professor David Marsh provided encouragement, assistance and inspiration, as did those who kindly read the drafts. I want to record sincere thanks to two highly perceptive sociologists, Meryl Horrocks and Alan Aldridge at the University of Nottingham who read and commented on the drafts; to Herschel Prins at the School of Social Work, University of Leicester, who carefully read the drafts and who made more valuable criticisms than I dare remember. Also, I want to give special thanks to the series editor, Professor Vic George, University of Kent, who made another set of valuable and important comments. Valerie, my wife, has had all the arguments presented on countless occasions and has fortunately remained sceptical throughout. Christine Woolley and Joanna Fisher typed the drafts in a speedy and efficient manner, and to those mentioned above and to countless others, I would like to express my special gratitude.

The author and publisher would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: HMSO for from Preliminary Report on the Probationary Research Project 1966; Basic Books Inc. for the extract from On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life, edited by Stanton Wheeler 1969 by Russell Sage Foundation, on pp.106-07; and the American Correctional Association for the extract from Manual of Correctional Standards, on pp.117-18.

This book is about the penal system as it exists in England and Wales in the 1970s. It is also about rehabilitation which, in the context of the modern penal system, means being sentenced to receive help. Sentences to receive help are now so much part of the judicial and penal process, that we now regard them as common practice. Occasionally judges and magistrates pass a sentence for different reasons retributive or as a deterrent perhaps but officials operating the penal processes invariably attempt to turn the sentence into a rehabilitative one. We think there is nothing strange about this apparent conflict. We also accept that a sentence to be helped can be passed on all types of offenders, in all age groups, and for almost all types of offences ranging from driving with no L plates to homicide. And yet seventy-five years ago, the Gladstone Committee thought it no concern of the penal system to be involved in the rehabilitation of offenders. How then has rehabilitation become so important, or to put the question another way, what is meant by rehabilitation, and how does it operate in the courts and in the penal system? The time now seems right to begin to ask these questions in a systematic way, for ideas about rehabilitation have wider implications than issues about the treatment of offenders.

Although the central concern in this book is rehabilitation as it affects the modern penal system, juvenile offenders have not been included. Juvenile justice is now changing rapidly. The recent Children and Young Persons Act 1969 contains many radical proposals, not all of which have been implemented, but if and when they are, there will be two separate systems of justice operating in the courts. There will be one for adults which will place more emphasis on legal requirements and be primarily concerned with legal rights and duties. It will be operated by traditional groups such as police, magistrates, judges, etc. The other will be for juveniles which will emphasize the social background of the offenders and be operated primarily by social workers. Such a change requires, I think, a separate analysis.