Dual approach and penal paradox

Dual approach and penal paradox

The dual approach to correctional processes refers to the simultaneous implementation of punitive measures(retributive) and rehabilitative strategies (reductivism) within the same penal system.

  • Although society often expresses support for a dual approach to corrections- however in practice rehabilitative aims are frequently superseded, constrained, or overshadowed by retributive imperatives.

  • This creates what has been describe as a “penal paradox”: systems claim to rehabilitate while structurally reinforcing punitive expansion.

  • This dynamic has become particularly pronounced in recent decades, especially within the digital era.- lead to the rise of ‘digital rehabilitation’


Dual approach in contemporary time

From rehabilitation ideal to ‘digital rehabilitation’

Traditionally, rehabilitation ideal focused on:

  • Human-centred: relies on direct interaction with professionals –e.g., probation officer

  • Moral reform: holistic tackle criminogenic needs

  • Desistance focused: Social reintegration

  • Flexibility: Interventions can adapt to the
    individual’s progress and personal context

Digital rehabilitation focus on:

  • Risk containment rather than moral reform

  • Data-driven decisions

  • Delivered remotely –e.g., virtual counselling- CBT

  • Prioritise cost-efficiency

  • Rehabilitation is reframed as a technical correction of risk rather than a social process.


Digital rehabilitation

  • Promote supervision and monitoring

    • Eg. electronic tagging, GPS tagging

  • Online intervention

    • Programmes, CBT delivered through digital platforms

  • Online training, education and virtual mentoring

  • Actuarial rehabilitation

  • Algorithmic rehabilitation

    • Inform or determine rehabilitative decisions

Algorithmic rehabilitation

  • Algorithmic justice builds upon actuarial logic but embeds it in AI systems and data infrastructures.

  • Good example of Algorithmic justice is COMPAS

  • COMPAS- (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) is a risk assessment software used in the CJS to predict a defendant’s likelihood of reoffending, assisting courts and parole boards in sentencing, bail, and rehabilitation decisions.

In algorithmic systems:

  • Risk assessments are automated

  • Decision-making becomes data-driven

  • Human discretion may be reduced

  • Overlook structural factors

  • Ignore human agency – human are rational

  • Algorithms are trained on historical data

  • Historical data reflect existing inequalities

Actuarial rehabilitation

  • Offenders are classified into risk categories

  • Interventions are allocated based on statistical probability

  • The aim becomes risk containment rather than personal change

  • Rehabilitation becomes instrumental

  • Improve efficiency and resource allocation

  • But reduce attention to structural factors such as poverty, racism, or social exclusion

Actuarial and algorithmic rehabilitation

  • De-centre moral and relational rehabilitation

  • Prioritise risk minimisation

  • Focus on cost- efficiency

  • Emphasise public protection over personal growth

  • Rehabilitation becomes digitised and actuarialised — measured through probabilities rather than human development.

  • Digital rehabilitation replacing human change with statistical prediction.

  • Rehabilitative practices has been reframed primarily as instruments of risk management rather than as mechanisms of social reintegration or moral reform

Extreme forms of rehabilitation

Rehabilitating sex offenders

  • Surgical castration

  • Chemical castration

In the 1970s, for example trials took place in British prisons to chemically castrate 138 sex offenders

However, several studies indicated a low recidivism - some offender can still have sexual desire even after castration. (Harrison, 2007)

  • A number of European countries have used of chemical castration (including: France, Italy and Belgium)

  • Similarly , in USA e.g., California and Texas enact legislation on chemical castration; subsequently enacted in several other states

  • Effectiveness appears to be achieved where chemical treatment is used in conjunction with counselling (Harrison, 2007)