One of the major issues of the criminal justice system is the purpose of criminal adjudication and the role of punishment -- is the purpose of the system to punish offenders or to rehabilitate them for reintroduction into society? This question has been much debated for many decades. The answer may depend on the conception society possesses of crime itself and the causes of crime. For those who see crime as a sin, a moral aberration, punishment is probably the choice. In medieval times, this would be described in terms of driving out the demons, and while one might see this as a form of rehabilitation, since the individual without demons is improved, punishment is still the prevailing intention. If one believes that crime is caused by societal forces such as poverty, discrimination, and a lack of education, rehabilitation becomes more necessary. The criminal is seen as not entirely at fault, and thus punishment is misplaced. Instead, society makes up for some of the problems that have created the criminal by offering rehabilitative programs for job training, education, and so on. The rehabilitative model has fallen into disfavor in recent years largely because of a public fear of crime. When the public fears street crime, demands for punishment increase both for prevention of future crime on the theory of deterrence and for some form of general retribution against all the other criminals still running loose. Yet, some form of rehabilitation is necessary in the prison system even if we assume that punishment is the primary purpose of prison. Even those dedicated to the punishment model see work programs and even education as needed if for no other reason than as "make-work" efforts to keep inmates busy. The truth of the situation lies somewhere between the two models-there are those offenders who can be rehabilitated, and those who cannot. We need to implement the rehabilitative model in order to reform those capable of bei<...