Ryan on the "New Rehabilitation"

I remember once reading that Michael Moore attacked rehabilitation as not even a real theory of punishment at all -- as without philosophical bona fides.  And for the past few decades, rehabilitation has gone largely silent in punishment theory (with honorable exceptions, to be sure).

So those who are interested in punishment theory will want to check out Meghan Ryan's (SMU) extremely interesting new piece, Breakthrough Science and the New Rehabilitation.  Here's a bit from deep into the piece.

This New Rehabilitation that is emerging in the wake of these pharmacological, genetic, and neuroscientific revolutions differs in great respect from the old rehabilitation that prevailed in the 1960s and early 1970s. Instead of focusing on changing the character of offenders, or in extreme cases a crude mutilation of an offender’s anatomy, this New Rehabilitation instead focuses on changing the biochemical composition of an offender . . . .

 These differences in the New Rehabilitation require us to reevaluate whether this new version of the age-old penological goal poses different ethical concerns. While new scientific advances may increase the effectiveness of rehabilitative efforts, and while the concern that "nothing works" dominated the movement against rehabilitation in the 1970s, there were other concerns about rehabilitation that contributed to the demise of this theory of punishment.

Ryan goes on to explore several similarities and differences between the older and newer varieties of rehabilitation.