When referring to rehabilitation in the criminal justice field, specific definitions of what “rehabilitation” means can vary. Pycroft and Clift (2012) ask whether “rehabilitating” someone in relation to crime means eliminating criminal and problematic behavior or whether another definition could be the process of reintegrating an individual into society. Furthermore, Priestley and Vanstone (2010: 1) cite Forsyth (1987) in defining rehabilitation, defining it as a process concerned with “the restoration of the individual's reputation and status as a citizen”. Definitions aside, the purpose of rehabilitation in the criminal justice sector is to reduce crime by rehabilitating those who create it, where competing approaches to rehabilitation have developed over decades. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Over time, research into the effectiveness of prisons in reforming offenders through direct punishment began to be called into question, where probation was introduced to help manage offenders in custody and at time of release into the community. “To begin with, probation was associated with the release of offenders on good behavior recognizance” (Robinson and Crow, 2009: 24). Subsequently, rehabilitation strategies evolved alongside probation, where many methods such as therapies and drug programs were introduced as a means of deterring offenders from crime. Several justifications for rehabilitation have emerged in the field of criminal justice, the most influential being the utilitarian justification that transforming offenders into law-abiding citizens is best for society, communities, and victims. This final logic links closely to today's risk-focused approach to rehabilitation, focusing on public protection and reducing recidivism. “The risk management approach to the assessment and rehabilitation of offenders dominates the way correctional programs are delivered throughout the Western world” (Casey et al. 2013: 38). Beck (1992) analyzed the concept of "risk society", arguing that in modernizing society, humans are subject to increased risk factors, such as increasing levels of crime. He argues that because this increased risk is primarily a risk "manufactured" by humans, patterns can therefore be analyzed and predicted, because they are a product of human activity. Therefore the idea of ​​a risk-based approach to crime management was formulated. Casey et al. (2013) discuss the risk-focused approach to rehabilitation, explaining how matching an individual's level of risk to the level of interventions required formulates a “resources follow risk” approach to managing crime. As Bonta and Andrews (2007: 5) state; “the risk principle states that offender recidivism can be reduced if the level of treatment services provided to the offender is proportional to the offender's risk of reoffending.” This concept is known as the “Risk-Need-Responsivity” (RNR) model. The “risk” element consists of 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 should match the offender's abilities, characteristics and learning styles(Casey et al., 2013). The RNR model has been incredibly influential in the management of offenders in society, where risk assessments and interventions have developed. because of the principles outlined in the model (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). The RNR model's successes in rehabilitating offenders stem from its intensive treatment approach for high-risk offenders, which targets criminogenic needs, resulting in reduced recidivism rates (Ward and Maruna, 2007). This risk-based approach to rehabilitation has been integrated into the criminal justice field and has had a positive impact on reducing crime and criminality. Furthermore, Bonta and Andrews (2007:1) state that "the criminal behavior of offenders can be predicted in a reliable, practical and useful way" due to the ability of the RNR model to predict potential future crime patterns. However, the model has been criticized for its one-size-fits-all approach to rehabilitation whereby offenders appear to have little or no say in the goals imposed on them. This arguably one-sided method prevents offenders from taking responsibility for their path away from crime and is said to potentially create barriers between the individual and the criminal justice worker through the formulation of an 'us and them' perspective. . However, Ward and Maruna (2007: 96) state that "the empirical support for the RNR model is impressive and certainly suggests that offenders treated according to its core principles are more likely to desist from committing further crimes". A social reintegration approach The rehabilitation of the offender takes place in the form of the "Good Lives Model" (GLM). Unlike the public protection focus of the RNR model, the Good Lives Model (GLM) “has a primary interest in improving the well-being of the offender” (Casey et al. 2013: 37). GLM focuses on the strengths of offenders and responds to their needs, abilities and interests, while emphasizing the importance of allowing these individuals to help them formulate their own goals, as it establishes the idea of ​​what they believe be a “good life” (Casey et al. 2013). The GLM assumes that all human beings want to achieve goals and therefore offenders should receive effective support to rehabilitate them and help them achieve their goals (Lösel, 2015). This idea of ​​offender rehabilitation contrasts with the incredibly risk-focused approach to rehabilitation as outlined in the RNR model, as the GLM focuses its principles on social integration and well-being, as opposed to the "corrective" ideology of the approach RNR. Another social reintegration model of offender rehabilitation is distance theory. “Although there is no agreed theoretical or operational definition of desistance, most criminologists have associated desistance with both cessation and abstention from offending” (Weaver and McNeill, 2013: 37). Like GLM, desistance theory argues that by reintegrating offenders into society, providing the appropriate support and guidance to utilize and expand identified strengths, recidivism rates can be reduced. Desistance examines both the individual's strengths on a personal level, and in relation to social networks, where a strategy can then be outlined to sustain momentum and consistency in change (McNeill, 2006). The exploration of desistance in the field of criminal justice has led to the emergence of different styles of managing offenders, resulting in rehabilitation strategies such as improving offenders' self-esteem and giving."