Why the Justice Model Replaced the Medical Model in Corrections
This paper examines the transition from the medical model of corrections — which treats criminal behavior as a diagnosable illness — to the justice model, which emphasizes fairness and proportional punishment over rehabilitation. The paper defines both models, identifies three potential explanations for the shift, and argues that public frustration with rising recidivism rates and the perceived failure of rehabilitation programs was the most powerful driver of change. The political consensus between liberals and conservatives and the rhetoric of the War on Drugs are also evaluated as contributing factors. The paper concludes by calling for further research into how media coverage shapes and amplifies public frustration with the criminal justice system.
- Introduction: Scope and structure of the paper
- Defining the Models: Medical vs. justice model core principles
- The Political Explanation: Bipartisan support accelerated the model shift
- The Frustration Explanation: Public anger at failed rehabilitation drove change
- The War on Drugs Explanation: Anti-drug campaigns reinforced punitive corrections logic
- Conclusion: Frustration identified as the primary causal factor
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens by clearly defining both models before introducing explanatory frameworks, giving readers the conceptual grounding needed to follow the argument.
- It presents three distinct explanations in separate sections, then explicitly ranks them in the conclusion — demonstrating structured analytical thinking rather than open-ended description.
- The author balances citation-based evidence with reasoned personal judgment, signaling awareness that the question involves interpretation, not just factual reporting.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a comparative analytical framework: it defines two competing models, then systematically evaluates multiple causal explanations before selecting the most persuasive one. This "define → compare → explain → rank" structure is a reliable approach for policy and criminology essays at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper consists of six sections. The introduction outlines the paper's scope. A definitions section establishes the two models. Three body sections each develop one causal explanation (political, frustration, War on Drugs). The conclusion synthesizes the three explanations, defends the author's primary claim, and proposes a direction for future research — a well-formed closing move for an analytical essay.
Introduction
This paper addresses the reasons why the medical model of corrections has been replaced by the justice model of corrections. It begins by defining each of these two models and their basic characteristics, followed by a discussion of the possible causes of this transition. From these possible causes, a primary cause is selected based on information obtained during the research process. A concluding section summarizes these findings. Recommendations for further research are also made.
The three possible explanations examined are: (1) the political explanation; (2) the frustration explanation; and (3) the "War on Drugs" explanation.
Defining the Models
In order to understand why the justice model has replaced the medical model, we must first understand the difference between the two. The medical model "views the offender as being emotionally ill, with the logical conclusion that the illness can be diagnosed, treated, and cured" (Williams, 1996, p. 137). Essentially, it is based on the idea that, just like any other sickness, criminal behavior can be cured with the right antidote.
The justice model, on the other hand, is based on a shift from "rehabilitation" to "fairness." The model's primary advocate, David Fogel, asserted that sentencing disparities were at the core of the problems associated with the penal system, and therefore reform efforts needed to focus on the elimination of indeterminate sentences and parole — both central features of the medical model. According to Williams (1996), "The justice model openly recognizes that prisons serve only to punish offenders; no claim is made for the therapeutic value of incarceration" (p. 137).
The Political Explanation
When Fogel's justice model first became popular in the 1970s, it was supported by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals supported it because they opposed indeterminate sentencing and saw the justice model as a means of creating a fairer system. Conservatives supported it because they considered it "a welcome change from what they saw as coddling criminals within the Rehabilitation Model" (Barlow & Barlow, 1993, p. 76). It is extremely rare for both liberals and conservatives to support the same policy, and this widespread bipartisan support had a great deal to do with the medical model being replaced.
There were apparently aspects of the justice model that appealed to both sides, and it appears that both conservatives and liberals were able to overlook its negative implications in favor of its perceived benefits. The political explanation is therefore a very likely catalyst. However, there is also reason to believe that Americans' growing lack of faith in the justice system helped to propel this transition.
Conclusion
This paper has discussed three possible explanations for America's replacement of the medical model with the justice model: (1) the political explanation; (2) the frustration explanation; and (3) the War on Drugs explanation. While all three explanations are logically sound and each has contributed in its own way to the transition, the frustration explanation is the one that had the most powerful effect. Frustration is always a powerful and dynamic impetus for change, a dynamic that has been made abundantly clear in modern political history.
The research strongly supports the conclusion that the frustration explanation is the most valid of the three. However, further research is needed into how media coverage perpetuates these frustrations, and how much of that reporting reflects reality versus sensationalism.
References
Barlow, D. E., & Barlow, M. H. (1993). Cultural diversity training in criminal justice: A progressive or conservative reform? Social Justice, 20(3/4), 69–84.
Robinson, M. B., & Scherlen, R. G. (2007). Lies, damned lies, and drug war statistics: A critical analysis of claims made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. SUNY Press.
Sparks, R. (1996). Prison histories: Reform, repression and rehabilitation. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), Controlling crime. Sage/Open University.
Williams, V. L. (1996). Dictionary of American penology. Greenwood Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.