The Future of Correctional Practice*
| Author | W. E. Lucas |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587100400206 |
| Published date | 01 June 1971 |
| Date | 01 June 1971 |
AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (June, 1971): 4, 2
The Future
of
Correctional Practice*
w.
E.
LUCASt
101
AS I
am
a
psychiatrist
speaking
on
corrections
a few
disclaimers
are
necessary. I
am
not
giving
this
paper
primarily
as a
psychiatrist
although
my
professional
experiences
and
training
naturally
colour my
thinking.
Most
of
the
paper
is
based
on
what
I
have
read,
heard
and
seen
in
a
year
studying
criminology
at
Cambridge
and
visiting
penal
institutions
in
Britain
and
Europe. I do
not
believe
that
the
problems
of a
correctional
system
can
be
solved by
psychiatry,
any
more
than
Ibelieve
that
crime
is a
phenomenon
to be
explained
and
treated
by
theories
and
techniques
of
psychiatrists.
Psychiatric
explanations
of
the
vast
bulk
of offences
cannot
stand
critical
examination
and
the
number
of offenders
requiring
active
psychiatric
intervention
is
relatively
small. Despite
the
title
of my
paper
I
bring
no
news of
miracles
in
the
reduction
of recidivism,
or
of
preventive
measures
to
reduce
drastically
the
rate
of crime.
The
future
of
correctional
practice
is so
intimately
tied
to
the
correc-
tional
present
with
its
conflicts and,
irrationalities
that
I
must
devote
much
of
the
paper
to
what
Ibelieve to be
the
central
issues of corrections. I
think
it
is
fair
to
say
that
most
papers
in
this
seminar
have
told
us
either
what
is
being done,
or
what
should
be done. Aims
are
discussed
in
relation
to
specific
settings,
or
branches
of
penal
activity,
but
what
is
needed
before
we
rush
on to
the
correctional
millenium
is some idea,
in
the
broadest
possible
context,
of
what
we
are
trying
to
do.
Judges,
penal
administrators
and
professionals
are
constantly
placed
in
the
position of
having
to
do
something
about
the
offender,
or
the
institution
placed
under
their
authority,
and
little
opportunity
is given to
examine
the
basis
of
practice,
belief
and
theory.
There
are
two
related
questions
we
should
consider.
The
first
is
what
is
the
aim
of
the
penal
system, or
rather
what
should
it
be. T'he
second
is
what
means
may
we
legitimately
or
humanely
employ to
achieve
the
desired
results.
Nigel
Walker
(1966) in discussing
the
aims
of a
penal
system
reaches
conclusions
with
which
Iagree. He does
not
believe
that
retribution
is a
proper
aim
for
a
penal
system.
The
desire
that
an
offence
be
revenged
and
that
the
offender
atone
by
suffering
is
easily
roused
in
many,
if
not
most,
*A
paper
given at a
seminar
with
the
title
"Treat
or Punish?"
which
was
conducted
by
the
Institute
of Criminology,
Faculty
of Law, University of
Sydney
in June, 1968.
Ishould like to
thank
Professor K.O. Shatwell for his permission to publish
the
paper.
tM.B., B.S., D.P.M. (Syd.), Dip.Crim. (Cantab), M.A.N.Z.C.P.
Senior
Lecturer
in
Forensic Psychiatry,
Faculty
of Law,
University
of Sydney.
To continue reading
Request your trial