When referring to rehabilitation in the criminal justice field, specific definitions of what “rehabilitation” means can vary. Pycroft and Clift (2012) question whether “rehabilitation” of a person from crime involves eliminating criminal and problematic behaviors or whether another definition may be the process of reintegrating an individual into society. Additionally, Priestley and Vanstone (2010:1) cite Forsyth (1987) when defining rehabilitation, calling it a process concerning “the restoration of the individual's reputation and status as a citizen.” Definitions aside, the goal of rehabilitation in the criminal justice sector is to reduce crime by rehabilitating those who create it, where contrasting approaches to rehabilitation have developed over the decades. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayOver time, research on the effectiveness of prisons in reforming offenders through direct punishment began to be questioned, when probation was introduced to help manage offenders throughout their detention. and upon release into the community. “Initially, probation was associated with the release of offenders on good behavior recognizance” (Robinson and Crow, 2009: 24). Following this, rehabilitation strategies evolved alongside probation, where many methods such as drug therapy and programs were introduced as a means of deterring offenders from committing crime. Several justifications for rehabilitation in the criminal justice field have emerged, the most influential being the utilitarian justification that transforming offenders into law-abiding citizens is what is best for society, communities, and victims. . This latter rationale is closely related to the current risk-based approach to rehabilitation, focused on protecting the public and reducing recidivism. “The risk management approach to offender assessment and rehabilitation dominates the way correctional programs are delivered in the Western world” (Casey et al. 2013: 38). Beck (1992) analyzed the concept of "risk society", arguing that in a modernized society, humans are subject to more risk factors, such as increased levels of crime. According to him, since this increase in risk is mainly made up of risks "made" by humans, the patterns can therefore be analyzed and predicted, because they are the product of human activity. Thus the idea of ​​a risk-based approach to crime management was formulated. Casey et al. (2013) discuss the risk-based approach to rehabilitation, explaining how matching an individual's level of risk to the required level of interventions formulates a “resources follow risk” approach to managing crime. As Bonta and Andrews (2007:5) state: “the risk principle states that the offender's recidivism can be reduced if the level of treatment services provided to the offender is proportional to the offender's risk of recidivism.” This concept is known as the Risk-Need-Responsiveness (RNR) model. The risk element involves matching the level of services to the risk level of the offender. “Need” refers to targeted interventions associated with criminal behavior. Finally, the “responsiveness” element specifies that interventions must correspond to the capacities, characteristics andto the offender's learning styles (Casey et al., 2013). The RNR model has had considerable influence on the management of offenders in society, where risk assessments and interventions have developed. due to the principles set out in the model (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). The RNR model's successes in offender rehabilitation stem from its intensive treatment approach for high-risk offenders, which targets criminogenic needs, resulting in reduced recidivism rates (Ward & Maruna, 2007). This risk-based rehabilitation approach has been integrated into the criminal justice field and has had a positive impact on reducing crime and delinquency. Furthermore, Bonta and Andrews (2007:1) assert that “the criminal behavior of offenders can be predicted in a reliable, practical and useful manner” due to the ability of the RNR model to predict potential future offending trends. However, the model has been criticized for its unique approach to rehabilitation, whereby offenders appear to have little or no say in the goals imposed on them. This method, arguably one-sided, prevents offenders from taking ownership of their own journey out of crime and could potentially create barriers between the individual and the criminal justice worker due to the framing of the "us and them" perspective. ". Nevertheless, Ward and Maruna (2007: 96) argue that "the empirical support for the RNR model is impressive and certainly suggests that offenders treated according to its broad principles are more likely to refrain from further offending." A social reintegration approach The rehabilitation of offenders takes the form of the “Good Life Model” (GLM). In contrast to the emphasis on public protection in the RNR model, the Good Lives Model (GLM) “has the primary interest in improving the welfare of offenders” (Casey et al. 2013: 37). GLM focuses on offenders' strengths and responds to their needs, abilities and interests, while emphasizing the importance of enabling these individuals to help them formulate their own goals, as the idea of ​​what they believe to be a “good life” is established (Casey et al. 2013). The GLM assumes that all human beings want to achieve their goals and, therefore, offenders must receive effective support in order to rehabilitate them and help them achieve their goals (Lösel, 2015). This idea of ​​rehabilitating offenders contrasts with the incredibly great risk. targeted approach to rehabilitation as described in the RNR model, as the GLM focuses its principles on social integration and well-being, as opposed to the "correctional" ideology of the RNR approach. Another social reintegration model of offender rehabilitation is the distance theory. “Although there is no agreed theoretical or operational definition of desistance, most criminologists have associated desistance with both cessation and abstention from committing offenses” (Weaver and McNeill, 2013: 37). Like GLM, desistance theory argues that by reintegrating offenders into society, providing them with the appropriate support and guidance to use and develop their identified strengths, recidivism rates can be reduced. Desistance looks at both the individual's personal strengths and their relationships with social networks, where a strategy can then be defined to support their momentum and consistency towards change (McNeill, 2006). The exploration of desistance in the field of criminal justice has given rise to the emergence of different styles of offender management, resulting in rehabilitation strategies such as."