Literature Review Assignment

profilefarra004
beyond.pdf

38

Beyond 'What Works?' A 25-year Jubilee Retrospective of Robert Martinson's Famous Article

Rick Sarre

The story behind the publication of American sociologist RobertMartinson's 1974 article entitled "What Works?" provides researchers, policy-makers and social science observers with a sobering reminder of the possibilities of research conclusions assuming an inappropriate life of their own. This paper explores briefly the origins of the article and its impact at the time on corrections policy. It discusses some of the events since 1974, in both the USA and Australia, that

demonstrate the subsequent reification of "Nothing Works". It is not designed as contributing to the debate on the effectiveness of rehabilita-

tion. Rather the story is used an illustration of the potential for research

to fall victim to the dangers of socially constructed realities.

Robert Martinson in 1974 In the late 1960s in the USA a large number of rehabilitation evaluations were reviewed by the New York sociologist Robert Martinson in the company of two research colleagues, Dr Doug Lipton and Ms Judith Wilks. His interpretations of the results were published in a now famous article under his name alone in the journal The Public Interest, entitled "What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform". The 1974 article is historically regarded as debunking the idea that it is possible to rehabilitate custodial inmates, indeed, to reform prisoners at all. Many authors have noted that it is probably the least frequently read but most frequently quoted and cited article in the rehabilitation literature (e.g., Cousineau and Plecas, 1982, Gendreau and Ross, 1987).

Martinson is often misquoted. What did he actually say? He wrote:

"With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism. Studies that have been done since our survey was completed do not present any major grounds for altering that original conclusion". (1974, p. 25)

Address for correspondence: Associate Professor of Law and Criminology, School of International Business, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia. Email: [email protected]

THEAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 34 NUMBER I 200I PP. 38-46

BEYOND 'WHATWORKSr

Moreover,

"It may be simply that our programs aren't yet good enough - that the education we provide to inmates is still poor education, that the therapy we administer is not administered skillfully enough, that our intensive supervision and counseling do not yet provide enough personal support for the offenders who are subjected to them. If one wishes to believe this, then what our correctional system needs is simply a more full...hearted commitment to the strategy of treatment. It may be, on the other hand, that there is a more radical flaw in our present strategies - that education at its best, or that psychotherapy at its best, cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendencies of offenders to continue in criminal behavior". (1974, p. 49)

These conclusions were not dissimilar to his earlier expressed views on the subject. In 1972 he had concluded, in a four part series in the liberal New Republic, that correctional treatments has no appreciable effect - positive or negative - on rates of recidivism of convicted offenders (Martinson, 1972).

Martinson's skepticism of the ability of prisons to rehabilitate offenders derived from his participation in a survey of American evaluations of rehabilitative programs. From 1968 to 1970 the research team reviewed 231 evaluations that had been conducted in the USA from 1945 to 1967. The programs under scrutiny included intensive supervision, psychotherapy, group therapy, vocational training, educational approaches and medical interventions. In each case the three researchers had to be satisfied that the program had been systematically evaluated. At this time, rehabilitative notions dominated penal philosophy, and had done so for at least a century and a half. Rehabilitation had grown out of a humanistic tradition that demanded that the individual be the focus of sentencing, not the crime itself. Thus, in 1974, many people considered rehabilitation to be the main aim of imprisonment (Hall, 1996, p. 400). Martinson's summary of the review, however, was entirely pessimistic and appeared to undermine this traditional faith in the rehabilitative ideal. It was not long before his article became nicknamed, "Nothing Works!". His conclusions were soon treated as fact by researchers, policy- makers and the public alike (Lipton, 1995, 1998, p. 2) and gave rise to heated debates in the contemporary literature (e.g., Palmer, 1975, Wilson, 1980).

Paradoxically, the idea that nothing worked in rehabilitating offenders appealed to Left and Right alike (Cullen & Gendreau, 1989). The Left was concerned with the injustices of sentencing that accepted the idea that those pushing rehabilitative ideals had forsaken the notion of commensurate "desert" in favour of indeterminate lengths of incarceration and forced treatment (von Hirsch, 1976, p. 127). The Right favoured anything that did not discourage retribution in sentencing. Indeed, if nothing worked, then longer prison terms and capital punishment became easier for the Right to sell. To a nation emerging from the Vietnam War and faced with an unruly youth and drug culture, "nothing works" became a slogan for the times (Cousineau & Plecas, 1982, p. 311). Indeed, there is a view that Martinson was able to provide the fuel for those keen to justify a scaling back of rehabilitation. Most correctional systems had few, if any trained psychiatrists, psychologists, or social workers, and a full scale commitment to rehabilitation would have crippled corrections budgets, especially as prison numbers began to rise with the coming of age of the "baby...boomers" (Miller, 1989; Dilulio, 1991). It should have surprised

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 39

40

RICKSARRE

no one, then, that few observers doubted that Martinson was correct, and that the article's conclusions received widespread publicity and acclaim.

"WhatWorksl" in Context It is important, however, to put "What Works?" in context. As stated above, Martinson was only one of three researchers to undertake the survey, which was published as The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment (Lipton et al., 1975). It had been finished in 1970 but was not publicly released until five years later. Although the survey came to be essentially identified with Martinson's name alone, he had joined the other two only after they were well into their work. Unknown to Lipton and Wilks, Martinson published the now famous article peremptorily and without their specific consent (Lipton, 1998).

In fact, the final 735 page report, published just six months after the appearance of "What Works?", concluded that "the field of corrections has not as yet found satisfactory ways to reduce recidivism by significant amounts (Lipton et al., 1975, p. 627) (my emphasis). This was, of course, a far more guarded conclusion, and left open the door for further rehabilitative optimism. The three authors appeared keen to emphasise that one should not shut the door on rehabilitation without first developing better diagnostic evaluative tools and collecting better data.

The 1975 findings were then reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences in the form of an assessment by a Panel on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques. In their judgment, "Lipton, Martinson and Wilks were ... accurate and fair in their appraisal of the rehabilitation literature" (Sechrest et al., 1979, pp. 5, 31, cited in Lipton, 1998, p. 5). The Panel (and therefore the Academy) appeared to temper Martinson's 1974 opinion by stating, "we do not now know of any program or method of rehabilitation that could be guaranteed to reduce the criminal activity of released offenders" (Sechrest et al., 1979, p. 3, cited in Lipton, 1998, p. 6). (Lipton emphasis). Academics were not universal in their praise of the 1975 report, however. Cousineau and Piecas (1982, p. 311) note that it contained methodologi- cal weaknesses. They conclude that the evidence used to support the conclusions of the report was taken at face value rather than being subjected to what they refer to as "organized skepticism" (Cousineau & Plecas, 1982, pp. 308, 311).

Be that as it may, the Martinson report of 1974 is the one that most people remember. It was well written. It cleverly incorporated a "devil's advocate" style of presentation, where issues were presented as questions and then debated using the evidence presented by the researchers' interpretations of the evaluations. However, with the value of hindsight, Martinson's approach had a number of flaws, princi- pally in his providing insufficient qualification for the conclusions he alone had reached. For example, many rehabilitative programs reviewed and regarded as failures by Martinson (if not the other researchers as well) were simply those that were starved of funds and which could never have provided the services they purported to provide (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982).

How one assesses the "failure" of any program is a topic that has been the subject of much celebrated debate more recently too (e.g., Sherman, 1992; University of Maryland, 1998). The 1974 appraisal simply tested programs against recidivism (re-arrest and re-conviction) rates (Martinson, 1974, p. 24), and did not

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

BEYOND 'WHAT WORKS?'

consider, for example, the winding down of an offender's criminal activity or how sentences are administered (Mair, 1991). Nor did it consider the difficulty posed by a lack of custodial choices. It is possible, of course, that the debilitating aspects of prison life would always outweigh any "aversive" rehabilitation program's effects (e.g., Vito & Allen, 1981). In other words, rehabilitation may be easily subverted by the criminogenic effect of their place of delivery (Sarre, 1984).

Moreover, Martinson's report did not consider the possibilities revealed by meta-analysis as a tool of prediction (Gendreau et al., 1996). It did not test the growing field of psychologically-based treatment methods focusing on "offence behaviour" (McGuire & Priestley, 1985, pp. 18-19). In all, Martinson had drawn his conclusions selectively from the broader study, and drew only from the evidence that was unduly pessimistic (Lipton, 1998, p. 3).

Three years later, in an article co-authored with Judith Wilks, Martinson showed signs of softening his stance, re-affirming the value of probation as a rehabilitative method (Martinson & Wilks, 1977). And then, a year before his death in 1980, he recanted substantially in an article published in the Hofstra Law Review. In that piece, he pointed to a plethora of rehabilitative models that had proved effective with offenders. He wrote that

"... contrary to my previous position, some treatment programs do have an apprecia ... ble effect on recidivism. Some programs are indeed beneficial; of equal or greater significance, some programs are harmful". (1979, p. 244, emphasis in the original)

Furthermore, he wrote that

"[tjhe most interesting general conclusion is that no treatment program now used in criminal justice is inherently either substantially helpful or harmfuL The critical fact seems to be the conditions under which the program is delivered ... Such startling results are found again and again in our study, for treatment programs as diverse as individual psychotherapy, group counseling, intensive supervision, and what we have called individual/help (aid, advice, counseling)." (1979, pp. 254-5, emphasis in the original)

The man who had started it all had come almost full circle. But by now, no one appeared to be listening. This later article is probably the most infrequently cited article on rehabilitation (Gendreau & Ross, 1987, p. 350) notwithstanding its importance in the literature at the time, and since.

The Last Decade In 1987, Gendreau and Ross published a survey of over 200 studies on rehabilita- tion conducted from 1981-1987, many of which used data more reliable than the data available to their predecessors. They concluded:

"Our reviews of the research literature demonstrated that successful rehabilitation of offenders had been accomplished, and continued to be accomplished quite well.... [R]eductions in recidivism, sometimes as substantial as 80 percent, had been achieved in a considerable number of we11... controlled studies. Effective programs were conducted in a variety of community and (to a lesser degree) institutional settings, involving predelinquents, hard ...core adolescent offenders, and recidivistic adult offenders, including criminal heroin addicts. The results of these programs were

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 41

42

RICKSARRE

not short... lived; follow ... up periods of at least two years were not uncommon, and several studies reported even longer follow ... ups." (Gendreau & Ross, 1987, pp. 350-351)

In short, many things "worked". However, the policy legacy for rehabilitation in the USA was already being etched in stone. Despite any rearguard action, rehabili... tation appeared to be doomed in the face of official mistrust of its effectiveness. The same year of the Gendreau and Ross publication, and a full thirteen years after the article's publication, then Attorney... General Edwin Meese referred to the "substantially discredited theory of rehabilitation" (cited in Cullen & Gendreau, 1989, p. 25). His views echoed those of the Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Alfred Regnery, who had spoken two years earlier of the "folly of rehabilitation", adding, "... since [Martinson], rehabilitation has sunk further in esteem ... the criminal justice system has all but given up on the concept. Virtually no successful juvenile programs - those that reduce recidivism to an appreciable degree - rely on rehabilitation" (Regnery, 1985, p. 3).

Moreover, a full fifteen years after the publication of 'What Works?', on January 18, 1989, the demise of rehabilitation in corrections was confirmed by the US Supreme Court. In Mistretta v. United States (1989) 488 US 361, the Court upheld federal sentencing guidelines that had been challenged on constitutional grounds. These guidelines removed the goal of rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing offenders. Defendants could henceforth be sentenced strictly for the crime - a "deserts ... based" approach - with no recognition given to such factors as amenability to treatment, personal and family history, or previous efforts toward rehabilitation. The Court summarised the history of the debate as follows: "Rehabilitation as a sound penological theory came to be questioned and, in any event, was regarded by some as an unattainable goal for most cases" (1989) 488 US 361 at 365. The Court cited a Senate Report that referred to the "outmoded rehabilitation model" for federal criminal sentencing, and stated that the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed. Arguably this reference provides another legacy of the Martinsonian "conclusion". As Gendreau and Ross note, "All too often, in the face of all contrary empirical evidence, we adhere to theories for political or ideological reasons or cavalierly switch ideologies depending upon transient political developments " (1987, p. 395).

The Present and the Future In Australia today, similar themes prevail. For, while lip...service is paid to the goal of rehabilitation in many of the official sentencing policies of this nation, much of the terminology is ambiguous. For example, even though section 5 of the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 states that one of the purposes for which sentences may be imposed is to "establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated", the legislation speaks in passive rather than active terms (Tomaino, 1999, p. 160). In other jurisdictions, other factors (for example protection of the community) are given pre ...eminence in sentencing guidelines. In South Australia, for example, the Criminal Law

THEAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

BEYOND 'WHAT WORKS?'

(Sentencing) Act 1988 states that one purpose of sentencing is "the rehabilitation of the offender", but it is the thirteenth - section 10(m) - consideration. In Tasmania's Sentencing Act 1997 (section 3(e)(ii)) rehabilitation is mentioned, but it is secondary to deterrence as a goal. In the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, the "prospects of the rehabilitation of the person" is again - section 16A(n) - a lowly consideration. In Western Australia (Sentence Administration Act 1995) and New South Wales (Sentencing Act 1989 and Sentencing Amendment (Parole) Act 1996), the only mention of rehabilitation is in relation to parole decisions. Queensland's Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 contains provi- sions which, for the most part, deal not with rehabilitation at all, but rather with the treatment of "spent" convictions.

Hence, while rehabilitation has never completely faded as a justification for punishment, "deserts-based" approaches hold a pre-eminent place in contemporary Australian sentencing practices (Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990, p. 6). Freiberg and Ross reiterate this theme when they state,

"Harshness has replaced hope, retribution has replaced rehabilitation, and preven- tion has eroded proportionality." (Freiberg & Ross, 1995, p. 138)

Even the literature on the newly emerging paradigm of restorative justice appears keen to establish restorative notions as new concepts rather than ones aligned with, (infer "tainted by"), rehabilitation (Sarre, 1999a, p. 15). For example, Albert Eglash, the psychologist who coined the term "restorative justice", advised that restoration must extend beyond rehabilitation, "[b]eyond what a court orders us to do, beyond what family or friends expect of us, beyond what a victim demands of us, beyond any source of external or internal coercion... " (Eglash, 1977, p. 95).

Having said that, there are some signs of a "new rehabilitationism" (Zdenkowski, 2000, p. 162) apparent in at least two recent justice trends. The first is the creation of specialist courts such as the drug courts currently operating in, for example, New York and New South Wales (Makkai, 2000, p. 81) where treatment and rehabilitation are given a primary focus. The second new trend is prison privatisation. Although it has been suggested that it is "not entirely without signifi- cance that the era of the development of private prisons has coincided with the decline of the "rehabilitative ideal" within prisons" (Bottomley et al., 1996), it is also the case that private contractors are, for the most part, required to set and sustain certain performance indicators regarding rehabilitation. This is in stark contrast to the position in the 1970s (at which time one might assume the rehabili- tative zeal had reached its zenith) when few, if any, prison systems would have regarded reduction of recidivism as a specific performance indicator (Harding, 1997, p. 19).

Be that as it may, the fact remains that rehabilitation, as an aim of sentencing in Australia, if not elsewhere, appears now to have assumed second-class status. It is arguable that the Martinsonian legacy must take some of the blame. Yet the zeal of those anxious to entomb rehabilitative initiatives sits awkwardly next to those presenting reasons for contemporary optimism (e.g., Gendreau & Ross, 1987; Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; McGuire & Priestley, 1992, Pitts, 1992, Holland & Mlyniec 1995, p. 1831; Lipton, 1996, Dowden & Andrews, 1999). In the words of McGuire and Priestley,

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 43

44

RICKSARRE

"[sjome years ago there was a widely quoted dictum, a flat and dismissive assertion that "treatment is dead". Given the accumulation of evidence since, the reverse case can now be made." (1995, p. 25)

Yet in the minds of those commentators and politicians anxious to push politically popular "desert" ...based themes, the idea that "nothing works" has become difficult to dislodge.

Conclusion The story of the reification of "nothing works" should send an important message to researchers that their responsibility in qualifying their findings and tempering their conclusions can never be overstated. Notwithstanding the substantial body of evidence that the doctrine of "nothing works" was and is little more than a socially constructed reality rather than a scientific truth, Martinson's famous article remains in the forefront of the minds of many contemporary Australian policy ... makers, politicians and administrators alike. In this context, researchers should keep in mind the cautions expressed by Barnes (1990, p. 9) that our thinking is really little more than models and interpretations, together with a minimally interrelated array of empirical findings, brought into the public arena for further debate. It is worth reflecting on that caution as we remember and acknowledge the twenty ... fifth anniversary of the publication of the article. Such acknowledgment provides a good opportunity for researchers to review the evidence, enliven the debate, sharpen the diagnostic tools and search anew for evidence of "what works".

References Barnes, J. (1990). Models andinterpretations. Avon, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bottomley, K., James, A., Clare, E. & Liebling, A. (1996). Evaluating private prisons: The crimi..

nological challenge, Paper presented to the annual conference of the ANZ Society of Criminology, Wellington, NZ.

Braithwaite, J. & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: A Republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cousineau, E & Plecas, D. (1982). Justifying criminal justice policy with methodologically inade .. quate research. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24, 307-321.

Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering the "Nothing Works" debate. In L. Goodstein & D.L. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy, (pp. 23-44). New York, NY: Plenum.

Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K.E. (1982). Reafflfming rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing. Dilullo, J. (1991). No escape: The future of American corrections. New York, NY: Basic Books. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D.A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta ..analysis.

Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21-24. Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond restitution: Creative restitution. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Eds.),

Restitution in criminal justice. Lexington Mass: Lexington Books. Fox, R & Freiberg, A. (1999). Sentencing: State and federal law in Victoria (2nd ed.). Melbourne:

OUP.

Freiberg, A. & Ross, S. (1995). Change and stability in sentencing: A Victorian study. In A. Karpardis (Ed.), Sentencing: Some key issues, Special Edition of Law in Context, 13(2), 107-142.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

BEYOND 'WHATWORKSr

Gendreau, P. & Ross, R.R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3),349-407.

Gendreau, P., Little, T. & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta..analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-607.

Hall, G. (1996). Corrections. In K.M. Hazlehurst (Ed.), Crime andjustice: An Australian textbook in criminology, (Chapter 16). North Ryde: LBC Information Services.

Harding, R. (1997). Private prisons and public accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Holland, P. & Mlyniec, W.J. (1995). Whatever happened to the right to treatment? - The

modern quest for a historical promise. Temple LawReview, 68(4),1791-1835. Lipton, D.S. (1995). COATE: Updating 'The effectiveness of correctional treatment' 25 years

later, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 22(1/2), 1-20. Lipton, D.S. (1996). Prison ..based therapeutic communities: Their success with drug.. abusing

offenders. National Institute ofJustice Journal, 230, 12-20. Lipton, D.S. (1998). The effectiveness of correctional treatment revisited thirty years later:

Preliminary meta..analytic findings from the COATE study. Unpublished paper presented to the 12th International Congress on Criminology, Seoul Korea, August 1998.

Lipton, D.S., Martinson, R. & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment valuation studies. New York, NY: Praeger Press.

Mair, G. (1991). What works - nothing or everything? Home Office Research and Statistics Department Research Bulletin, 30, 3-8.

Makkai, T. (2000). Drug trends and policies. In D. Chappell & P. Wilson (Eds.) Crime and the criminaljustice system in Australia: 2000 and beyond (pp. 63-86). Sydney: Butterworths.

Martinson, R. (1972). Paradox of prison reform. The New Republic, 166, April 1, 6,15 and 29. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? - Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public

Interest, 35,22-54. Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform.

Hofstra Law Review, 7, 242-258. Martinson, R. & Wilks, J. (1977). Save parole supervision. Federal Probation, 41,23-27. McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1985). Offending behaviour: Skills and stratagems for going straight.

London: Batsford Academic and EducationaL

McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1992). Some things do work: Psychological interventions with offend.. ers and the effectiveness debate. In E Losel, D. Bender & T. Bliesener, (Eds.), Psychology and Law: International Perspectives (pp. 163-174). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter Publishers.

McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing 'What Works': Past, present and future. In J. McGuire, (Ed.). What Works: Reducing Re-offending: guidelines from research and practice (pp. 3-34). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Miller, J.G. (1989). The debate on rehabilitating criminals: Is it true that nothing works? Washington Post, March 1989.

Myers, S.L. [nr (1980). The rehabilitation effects of punishment. Economic Inquiry, XVIII, 353-366.

Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12(2), 133-152.

Pitts, J. (1992). The end of an era. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 133-149. Regnery, A.S. (1985). Getting away with murder: Why the justice system needs an overhaul.

Policy Review, 34, 1--4 Sarre, R. (1984). The Orwellian connection: A comment on recent correctional reform literature.

Canadian Criminology Forum, 6 (2), 177-188. Sarre, R. (1999a). Restorative justice: Translating the theory into practice. University of Notre

Dame Australia LawReview, 1(1),11-25.

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 45

46

RICKSARRE

Sarre, R. (1999b). Destructuring and criminal justice reforms: Rescuing diversionary ideas from the waste-paper basket. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(3), 259-272.

Sechrest, L., White, S. & Brown, E. (Eds.) (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.

Sherman, L. W., (1992). Book review of Herman Goldstein Problem-Oriented Policing, NY McGraw,Hill 1990. TheJournal of Criminal Lawand Criminology, 82(3), 690-707.

Tomaino, J. (1999). Punishment theory. In R. Sarre & J. Tomaino (Eds.) Exploring criminaljustice: contemporary Australian themes (pp. 151-186). Adelaide: Institute of Justice Studies.

University of Maryland (1998). Web site http://www.preventingcrime.org

Vito, G .F. & Allen, H.E. (1981). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 70-76.

von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doingjustice: The choice of punishments. New York, NY: Hall and Wang. Wilson, J. Q. (1980). What works revisited: New findings on criminal rehabilitation. The Public

Interest, 61, 3-17. Zdenkowski, G. (2000). Sentencing trends: Past present and prospective. In D. Chappell & P.

Wilson (Eds.) Crime and the criminaljustice system in Australia: 2000and beyond (pp. 161-202). Sydney: Butterworths.

-II-

THEAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY