Abstract

The decline of the rehabilitative ethos in sentencing theory in the post_1960's is a story that has been told often, and need not be rehearsed here. Penal treatment programs, once tested for their effectiveness, showed scant success _ or at most, succeeded only in limited categories of cases. Doubts grew also about the fairness of making the severity of a person's sentence depend upon his responsiveness to treatment. As penal rehabilitation diminished in influence, the key question for penologists and reformers became: what conception of sentencing should follow it? My article, as well as Michael Tonry's and John Donahue's in the present volume, is devoted to this question, of the choice of sentencing rationale.I will focus, particularly, on a sentencing theory that became influential in the late 1970's and 1980's in this country and western Europe, and continues to have considerable influence today : namely, the proportionalist or 'desert' model for sentencing. I shall address briefly what this theory's main tenets are and how it differs from traditional retributivism; what has made it attractive to liberal criminologists and penal reformers during the last three decades; and whether and to what degree it has continued value and usefulness for the future.