The paper “ Aims and Functioning of the Law in Rehabilitation of Offenders” is a fascinating example of the case study on the law. This presentation is about the aims and functions of the employment law in the rehabilitation of offenders. The paper will begin by analyzing the aims of the law in rehabilitating offenders. It will be palpable from this section that the aims of the law in rehabilitation are in official terms of reference of people handling offenders. Case laws will be consulted to understand vividly how the law operates within the realms of rehabilitation of offenders.
This will be followed by an examination of the prospect of rehabilitation by assessing various factors considered by the courts in determining whether an offender is able to rehabilitate. Thereafter, the paper will proceed to address criticism placed on rehabilitation by various scholars. Before outlining recommendations, legislations targeting rehabilitation of offenders and ways of removing barriers to employment of ex-offenders will be dealt with explicitly. Aims of the law in rehabilitationRehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence comprise the main aims of the correctional system. Rehabilitation of offenders is intended to curb recidivism by paying attention to factors that propelled and offender into crime.
Specifically, rehabilitation seeks to address elements that are associated with recidivism. In a rehabilitation process, an offender is given different kinds of assistance intended to improve social skills, employment prospects, and the ability to obtain welfare benefits. The ideals of rehabilitation are evident in official terms of reference to people dealing with offenders. One of the terms states that Prison Service is supposed to treat inmates with humanity while helping them to live as law-abiding citizens immediately after their release.
The other term requires probation officers to advise, assist, and befriend offenders who in the case are their clients. In appeal decisions of R v Bugeja  NSWCCA 196 (11 May 2001), Adams J stated categorically that the purpose of the rehabilitation is such that the offender will not re-offend.
Anderson, D.B., 1981. ‘The relationship between correctional education and parole success’, Journal of Offender Counselling, Services and Rehabilitation, 5(3/4), 13-25.
Bridges, A., 1998. Increasing the Employability of Offenders: An Inquiry into Probation Service Effectiveness, Probation Studies Unit Report No. 6, University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A., 2007. Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. (User Report No. 2007-06). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Braithwaite, J., 1980. Prisons, Education and Work. Queensland: University of
Buffery, C., 1998. Promoting employment opportunities for ex-offenders.
Cambridgeshire Probation Service and Greater Peterborough Chamber
of Commerce, Training and Enterprise.
Fletcher, D., et al., 1998. Building Bridges into Employment and Training for
Ex-offenders. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Home Office Study.,1999. Explaining reconviction following a community sentence: the role of social factors,).
Martinson, R., 1974. What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest 35 (Spring): 22–54.
Metcalf, H., Heather, R. and Tracy, A., 2001. Barriers to Employment for
Offenders and Ex-offenders. Leeds: Corporate Document Services.
NIACRO., 1996. Regulating the Yellow Ticket: The laws, policies and practices
which affect the employment of people with criminal records in the European
Union. Belfast: NIACRO.
Raynor, P and Gwen, R., 2009. Why Help Offenders? Argument for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy. European Journal of Probation 1(1), pp 3 – 20.
Roberts, R.L., Harper, R. and Preszlier, B., 1997. ‘The Effects of the
Fresh Start Program on Native American Parolees’ Job Placement’, Journal
of Employment Counselling, 34(1): 115-123.