1) Cognitive Theories - CBT- teaches offenders to correct their thinking errors and biases that may have led them to crime

2) Eysenck's Personality Theory - favours the use of aversion therapy to deter offending behaviour

3) Skinner's Operant Learning Theory - Supports the use of token economies to encourage offenders in prison to reward more acceptable behaviour

LEFT REALISM - favours rehab as it may present an opportunity to address the social causes of crime. They believe the causes of crime are connected to poverty, unemployment and a lack of educational opportunity. If offenders can be given skills and training their needs will be met and will be less likely to offend.

4) Support - There will be a lot of input of resources and professional support from therapists, probation officers an organisations to achieve change.

RIGHT REALIST- Argues that rehab has limited success. Reoffending rates are high despite prisoners completing these programmes.

MARXISTS - These programmes shift the blame onto the offender and their failings. The real cause of crime is capitalism. There is a fixed tariff of penalties and discretion cannot be used.

To deter someone from doing something is to put them off doing it. The fear of being caught and punished could deter people from committing. Deterrence can be individual or general.

EXAMPLE - Margret Thatcher's 'short, sharp, shock' juvenile detention centres in the 80's were believed to work because they were so tough - young offenders would leave not wanting to return.

General Deterrence - This deters society in general from breaking the law. Punishment teaches everyone a lesson: if the public sees how an offender is punished they will see what they will suffer if they were to commit. In the past, in the UK, This was one through public executions. Today the media informs us about the costs of offending.

General Deterrence Severity vs Certainty - It is important to distinguish between the severity of punishment and the certainty of punishment. A severe punishment will only be a successful deterrent where the offender is likely to be caught. A mild punishment may be more effective where the offenders have a greater chance of being caught. EG the mandatory minimum sentence for a 3rd burglary is 3 yrs in prison but only 5% of reported burglaries result in a conviction so this would not deter a burglar.

Rational Choice Theory - this sees individuals as rational actors who weigh up the costs and benefits of committing a crime. Severe punishments increase costs and so will deter offenders.

Situational Crime Prevention - Target hardening eg locks on doors makes it more difficult for the offender and so they would abandon the target.

INDIVIDUALISTIC THEORY: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY - This explains general deterrence. If a potential offender sees a model being punished for an offence they are less likely to imitate this behaviour.

short, sharp, shock wasn't very successful

Prison isn't a very effective deterrent - Around 50% of prisoners reoffend within a year of release.

How do we decide how severe a punishment needs to be for it to deter enough potential offenders?

It assumes potential offenders are aware of the risks but this may not be the case.

It ignores acts that are irrational - driven by emotion

People also follow the law because they feel it is the right thing to do not.

BIOLOGICAL THEORIES - LOMBROSO - Argued that it is impossible to change criminals as they are biologically different to the rest of us. He supported detaining criminals rather than trying to rehabilitate them - he suggested housing them in islands away from the public. Other biological theories of criminality support chemical castration for sex offenders.

RIGHT REALISTS - A small number of persistent offenders are responsible for the majority of crimes and so long prison sentences would incapacitate them and protect the public

Incapacitation leads to longer sentences and long-term warehousing of offenders with little hope of release. This will increase the prison population and the costs that go with this.

This is a containment or risk-management strategy - it doesn't deal with the causes of crime or change offenders into law-abiding citizens.

It is unjust as it punishes people for crimes the law assumes they will commit in the furtue.

key idea = Involves the offender making amends for the wrong they have done. This harm can be material or social. The victim may be an individual, society as a whole or both.

Financial Compensation - Given to the victim. EG paying costs to repair damage. Courts can impose compensation orders on offenders.

Unpaid Work - Reparation to society. EG Community Payback - Removing graffiti. Imposed as part of a community order.

Restorative Justice - This makes amends for social damage. The offender has to recognise the impact of their actions by facing their victims alongside a mediator. This allows the victim a voice and a means of seeking closure in explaining the impact the crime has had on them. The offender will be able to express their remorse and seek forgiveness. This can help reintegrate the offender back into society.

LABELLING - As this allows offenders to show remorse it aslo allows reintegration and prevents them being pushes into secondary deviance.

FUNCTIONALISM: DURKHEIM - The ability to restore things to the way they were before the crime is essential for complex modern societies to function well.

This may not work with all types of offences / offenders - best for minor offences. Harder to see this working for families of murder or sex offence victims.