Қылмыстық жазадан кейінгі оңалту және қоғамға қайта интеграциялау

legal rehabilitation for lack of corpus delicti
Process to re integrate a person into society

Rehabilitation is the process of re educating those who have committed a crime and preparing them to re enter society. The goal is to address all of the underlying root causes of crime in order to decrease the rate of recidivism once inmates are released from prison. It generally involves psychological approaches which target the cognitive distortions associated with specific kinds of crime committed by individual offenders, but it may also entail more general education like reading skills and career training. The goal is to re integrate offenders back into society.

Norway's prison system is based on the principle of normalization and away from retribution to focus on rehabilitation. Inmates have access to amenities they would have outside of prison, such as an exclusive mini fridge, flat screen TV, private bathroom, and access to outdoor environment. This, along with a shared kitchen and living area "to create a sense of family" among inmates and the absence of traditional prison uniforms contributes to Norway's rehabilitative normalcy system. Halden fengsel, referred to as the "world's most humane maximum security prison", embodies the country's goal of reintegration by aiding inmates in sorting out housing and employment before leaving the prison. The effectiveness of Norway's methods is evident as they hold the lowest recidivism rate worldwide at 20% as of December 2014.

Certain criminals can be treated chemically so that they do not become criminals again.

As established by the Council of Europe committee of ministers, "a crime policy aimed at crime prevention and the social reintegration of offenders should be pursued and developed". In 2015 a number of reformers, including Koch family foundations, the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system in the United States. Their efforts were lauded by President Obama who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. Over the last few decades, the United States prison population has increased significantly. While prisons are considered punishment, they also are intended to have the purpose of future crime prevention. A recent study found that of $74 billion total spent on incarceration among federal, state and local prisons, less than 1% of that was spent on prevention and treatment. Incarceration not only harms the individual as intended, but also has unintended negative effects on the inmate's family, community, and overall society. Inmate education has been shown to reduce recidivism. Evidence shows that inmates overwhelmingly take advantage of education programs if they are available to them and if they can afford them. A recent study showed the earning a GED while incarcerate reduced recidivism rates by 14% for those under 21, and 5% for those over 21. Substance abuse is also a major issue in the prison system. Between 1996 and 2006, despite a modest population increase of 12%, the number of incarcerated individuals rose by 33% and the number of substance abusing individuals rose by 43%. Existing treatment programs have shown solid evidence that drug treatment programs, along with support after release, are effective at reducing recidivism. Emotional and mental health counseling is a core component of successful inmate rehabilitation. Without the proper innate motivation and desire from the inmate, attempts to educate or assist with substance abuse are less effective. A study revealed that more than half of those incarcerated had a mental health problem, defined as a recent history or symptoms of a mental health problem within the previous 12 months. California's juvenile justice system is based on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Criminal recidivism is highly correlated with psychopathy. The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Findings indicate psychopathic prisoners have 2.5 times higher probability of being released from jail than undiagnosed ones, even though they are more likely to recidivate. It has been shown that punishment and behavior modification techniques do not improve the behavior of a psychopath. Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to become more cunning and better able to hide their behaviour. It has been suggested that traditional therapeutic approaches actually make psychopaths if not worse , then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable. Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.

Some criticisms of rehabilitative systems are that they can authorize lengthy restrictions of liberty (to allow time for diagnosis and treatment) and broad assumptions of governmental power over offenders' personalities. Moreover, due process concerns can be implicated by a lack of traditional safeguards of defendants' procedural rights in rehabilitative processes. Some rehabilitative programs, such as drug courts, have also been criticized for widening the net of penal control by sentencing more defendants to prison for violations of treatment regimes than would have gone to prison in the absence of those programs.

Another criticism of criminal rehabilitation is whether or not any criminal rehabilitation is warranted. This matter is dependent on whether or not a crime factually occurred. For instance, the foundational grounds (such as the philosophical framework that substantiates whether or not behavior is factually criminal) for which a person has been accused to have committed a crime may not be present. The matter of whether or not a crime factually occurred can be a matter of debate that cannot be resolved to prove that a crime factually occurred. This is evidenced by the fact that legal systems require instead that a burden of proof be met for the conviction of persons, whereby any alleged fulfillment of a burden of proof for a conviction to occur (not necessarily that the burden of proof was factually fulfilled) does not necessarily imply that a crime factually occurred. Thus, there is a difference between a defendant's "legal guilt" and "factual guilt." Presuming that no crime factually occurred, there will be no rehabilitation to be had by an alleged criminal offender.