{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012533572068039392, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008952551477170994, 'mean_word_length': 5.245810055865922, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Punishment And Reason In Rehabilitating The Offender

*Paul Wagner is Coordinator of the Criminal Rehabilitation and Education Program, University of Missouri&mdash;Columbia. As crime rates continue to soar and prisons become vastly overcrowded, public attention has increasingly focused on the task of criminal rehabilitation. A series of promising innovations in prison reform has been followed by a succession of disappointing results. Each new program has, in its turn, fallen far short of the expectations of those responsible for initiating the program.1 Most of the failure to effectuate a program of criminal rehabilitation is the result of a disparity between the notion of the nature of man in our system of criminal justice and the notion of the nature of man implicit in our system of criminal rehabilitation. In our system of criminal justice man is explicitly regarded as a deliberative and reflective agent. In our system of criminal rehabilitation man is often considered as an organism wholly subject to the principles of behavior modification and presumably unable to be reflective and deliberative.