The central idea of this article predominantly explores the six main theories of correction or philosophies of punishment; which provide legitimate justifications for the state punishment of an individual through the criminal justice system. These theories include: Retribution or Just Deserts, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Restorative Justice, Rehabilitation, & Early Intervention (Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L., 2012). Furthermore, the article discusses based-origin of these theories while expressing social factors which have impacted their use; thereafter providing a systematic review of the given evidence towards the ultimate effectiveness of each strategy. More specifically, the study hypothesis of this article can be summed up according to both authors as a statement in “advocation for a correctional system that will effectively reduce crime; one rooted in betterment and social welfare rather than pain and prisons” (Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L., 2012).
After careful consideration and review of these individual theories, from the authors perspective it can be said that each have their own welfare and factors, however ultimately taken any of the above; simply one providing legitimate, well thought out and effectively researched changes within these theories, would indeed legitimize alternative variations of offender punishment and treatment (Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L., 2012). It is to my understanding that the Authors pose a very important and truthful declaration, specifically in regards to the increasing recognition in which those ignoring research data will indeed be supplement to the immense reduction effectiveness of U.S. Correctional Policy and its social and political factors. Implications of correctional policy look to amplify the importance of evidence-based informational usages as opposed to common ideology based non-scientific theories/beliefs (Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L., 2012).
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and Consequences. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE. Retrieved March 27, 2016.