Essay On Correctional Quackery

According to Lee & Stohr (2012), correctional quackery is defined as, “correctional programming that has at its base the ignorant adherence to practices that have no grounding in the scientific literature.” Therefore, the meaning behind this comes down to, “Does a specific program, technique, etc. actually and factually reduce recidivism rates of offenders?” Where Latessa et al. (2014), defines correctional quackery as, “occurring when we are dismissive of scientific knowledge.” Furthermore in my opinion I think that there should be a variety of programs and techniques labeled or not labeled as quackery.
First, I believe that if a program actually increases recidivism as Latessea et al. (2014) states, then I would define this quackery. However, I am not dismissing programs that were mentioned in the Lee & Stohr (2012), article as quackery. For example, maturely coping is not something I would deem as quackery. I base my decision on this by thinking about what we have learned this semester in regards to an offender as a human being. If programs such as education, gardening, weight lifting, etc. replace urges to offend and help the offender stay occupied, as well as form prosocial relationships, I would not consider this quackery (Lee & Stohr, 2012)!
I base my decision from the fact that if a program has no discernable scientifically proven effect on reducing recidivism, then why would the criminal justice system want to waste their money funding ineffective programs, when there could be others out there that truly are effective. We need to have develop programs that nor only address the cause of criminality in an individual, but also programs that focus on showing the offender how to change their behavior that led them to offend in the first place. Therefore, labeling a program as correctional quackery would not be an understatement or