The story behind the publication of American sociologist Robert Martinson's 1974 article entitled “What Works?” provides researchers, policy-makers and social science observers with a sobering reminder of the possibilities of research conclusions assuming an inappropriate life of their own. This paper explores briefly the origins of the article and its impact at the time on corrections policy It discusses some of the events since 1974, in both the USA and Australia, that demonstrate the subsequent reification of “Nothing Works”. It is not designed as contributing to the debate on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. Rather the story is used an illustration of the potential for research to fall victim to the dangers of socially constructed realities.
References
1.
BarnesJ. (1990). Models and interpretations. Avon, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BottomleyK.JamesA.ClareE.LieblingA. (1996). Evaluating private prisons: The criminological challenge, Paper presented to the annual conference of the ANZ Society of Criminology, Wellington, NZ.
3.
BraithwaiteJ.PettitP. (1990). Not just deserts: A Republican theory of criminal justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4.
CousineauF.PlecasD. (1982). Justifying criminal justice policy with methodologically inadequate research. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24, 307–321.
5.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering the “Nothing Works” debate. In GoodsteinL.MacKenzieD.L.(Eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy, (pp. 23–44). New York, NY: Plenum.
6.
CullenF. T.GilbertK.E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
7.
DilulioJ. (1991). No escape: The future of American corrections. New York, NY: Basic Books.
8.
DowdenC.AndrewsD.A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21–24.
9.
EglashA. (1977). Beyond restitution: Creative restitution. In HudsonJ.GalawayB.(Eds.), Restitution in criminal justice. Lexington Mass: Lexington Books.
10.
FoxR.FreibergA. (1999). Sentencing: State and federal law in Victoria (2nd ed.). Melbourne: OUR.
11.
FreibergA.RossS. (1995). Change and stability in sentencing: A Victorian study. In KarpardisA.(Ed.), Sentencing: Some key issues, Special Edition of Law in Context,13(2), 107–142.
12.
GendreauP.RossR.R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4(3), 349–407.
13.
GendreauP.LittleT.GogginC. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34(4), 575–607.
14.
HallG. (1996). Corrections. In HazlehurstK.M.(Ed.), Crime and justice: An Australian textbook in criminology, (Chapter 16). North Ryde: LBC Information Services.
15.
HardingR. (1997). Private prisons and public accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
16.
HollandP.MlyniecW.J. (1995). Whatever happened to the right to treatment? — The modern quest for a historical promise. Temple Law Review, 68(4), 1791–1835.
17.
LiptonD.S. (1995). CDATE: Updating ‘The effectiveness of correctional treatment’ 25 years later, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 22(1/2), 1–20.
18.
LiptonD.S. (1996). Prison-based therapeutic communities: Their success with drug-abusing offenders. National Institute of Justice Journal, 230, 12–20.
19.
LiptonD.S. (1998). The effectiveness of correctional treatment revisited thirty years later: Preliminary meta-analytic findings from the CDATE study. Unpublished paper presented to the 12th International Congress on Criminology, Seoul Korea, August 1998.
20.
LiptonD.S.MartinsonR.WilksJ. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment valuation studies. New York, NY: Praeger Press.
21.
MairG. (1991). What works — nothing or everything?Home Office Research and Statistics Department Research Bulletin, 30, 3–8.
22.
MakkaiT. (2000). Drug trends and policies. In ChappellD.WilsonP.(Eds.)Crime and the criminal justice system in Australia: 2000 and beyond (pp. 63–86). Sydney: Butterworths.
23.
MartinsonR. (1972). Paradox of prison reform. The New Republic, 166, April 1, 6, 15 and 29.
24.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works? — Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
25.
MartinsonR. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 242–258.
26.
MartinsonR.WilksJ. (1977). Save parole supervision. Federal Probation, 41, 23–27.
27.
McGuireJ.PriestleyP. (1985). Offending behaviour: Skills and stratagems for going straight. London: Batsford Academic and Educational.
28.
McGuireJ.PriestleyP. (1992). Some things do work: Psychological interventions with offenders and the effectiveness debate. In LoselF.BenderD.BliesenerT., (Eds.), Psychology and Law: International Perspectives (pp. 163–174). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter Publishers.
29.
McGuireJ.PriestleyP. (1995). Reviewing ‘What Works’: Past, present and future. In McGuireJ., (Ed.). What Works: Reducing Re-offending: guidelines from research and practice (pp. 3–34). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
30.
MillerJ.G. (1989). The debate on rehabilitating criminals: Is it true that nothing works?Washington Post, March 1989.
31.
MyersS.L.Jr (1980). The rehabilitation effects of punishment. Economic Inquiry, XVIII, 353–366.
32.
PalmerT. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12(2), 133–152.
33.
PittsJ. (1992). The end of an era. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 133–149.
34.
RegneryA.S. (1985). Getting away with murder: Why the justice system needs an overhaul. Policy Review, 34, 1–4.
35.
SarreR. (1984). The Orwellian connection: A comment on recent correctional reform literature. Canadian Criminology Forum, 6 (2), 177–188.
36.
SarreR. (1999a). Restorative justice: Translating the theory into practice. University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review, 1(1), 11–25.
37.
SarreR. (1999b). Destructuring and criminal justice reforms: Rescuing diversionary ideas from the waste-paper basket. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(3), 259–272.
38.
SechrestL.WhiteS.BrownE.(Eds.) (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
39.
ShermanL. W., (1992). Book review of Herman Goldstein Problem-Oriented Policing, NY McGraw-Hill 1990. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(3), 690–707.
40.
TomainoJ. (1999). Punishment theory. In SarreR.TomainoJ.(Eds.)Exploring criminal justice: contemporary Australian themes (pp. 151–186). Adelaide: Institute of Justice Studies.
VitoG.F.AllenH.E. (1981). Shock probation in Ohio: A comparison of outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 70–76.
43.
von HirschA. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments. New York, NY: Hall and Wang.
44.
WilsonJ. Q. (1980). What works revisited: New findings on criminal rehabilitation. The Public Interest, 61, 3–17.
45.
ZdenkowskiG. (2000). Sentencing trends: Past present and prospective. In ChappellD.WilsonP.(Eds.)Crime and the criminal justice system in Australia: 2000 and beyond (pp. 161–202). Sydney: Butterworths.
