Some recent social media commentary has oversimplified the complex issue of rehabilitation from crime and addiction, reducing it to slogans and reactionary opinions dangerously based on one-sided views.
While public concern about these matters is understandable, discussions must be grounded in knowledge and expertise. Allowing uninformed narratives by self-appointed experts to shape public perception risks undermining years of research and evidence-based practice.
As a forensic psychologist who has worked in the prison system for nearly a decade, I feel compelled to challenge misconceptions about rehabilitation. It is neither a quick fix nor a passive process. True rehabilitation requires structured interventions, professional expertise and long-term commitment.
Criminal behaviour and addiction do not emerge in a vacuum. They are often the result of multiple, deeply ingrained factors, including psychological trauma, social disadvantage and entrenched behavioural patterns. The notion that individuals can be “scared straight”, punished or even simply loved into reforming themselves misunderstands both human psychology and the science of behaviour change.
Decades of research confirm that rehabilitation is most effective when it addresses the key factors that contribute to offending behaviour. These are psychological treatment; education and skills development; stable social and family networks; and secure housing and employment opportunities.
Many offenders have a history of disrupted attachment, trauma, undiagnosed mental health disorders, or severe emotional dysregulation. Without addressing these issues, reintegration cannot be successful.
But psychological efforts towards rehabilitation count for nothing without other interventions. Without employable skills, to give but one example, individuals leaving prison are more likely to revert to criminal behaviour. Social isolation also increases the likelihood of reoffending. A supportive, non-criminogenic environment is crucial for reintegration.
People being released from prison in Malta have the added disadvantage of being unable to change communities. Our small size means that those who want a fresh start are not able to physically move far enough from the communities they formed part of prior to incarceration.
And, lastly, without stable accommodation or a legitimate income, the chances of rehabilitation are significantly reduced.
Rehabilitation is not about excusing criminal behaviour but about reducing reoffending.
Additionally, rehabilitation is not something done to an offender. It requires personal responsibility. People enter prison at different stages of their criminal lifespan, with varying levels of readiness to change. Some remain resistant for years before reflecting on their behaviour. Readiness for reform takes time – often longer than most prison sentences allow.
If rehabilitation were simple, every country in the world would have solved crime and addiction decades ago- Gail Debono
However, those experienced in crime and rehabilitation know that no intervention is wasted; each effort plants a seed for future change. The idea that rehabilitation is an instant process is a fantasy – true reform is gradual, shaped by consistent and professional intervention.
The belief that rehabilitation can be achieved through either harsh punishment or idealistic, feel-good interventions is not just misguided but dangerous. Calls for tougher sentencing or rigid, one-size-fits-all approaches ignore the complexity of criminal behaviour. Equally, policies that prioritise symbolic engagement over structured rehabilitation risk undermining the very process of reintegration.
While support and compassion are essential, effective rehabilitation must be guided by expertise and research. When policies are shaped by rhetoric rather than evidence, they tend to fail – often exacerbating crime and addiction rather than resolving them.
Meaningful reform in policy and practice must be gradual, deliberate and led by professionals in the field. Transforming a prison system, much like transforming human behaviour, requires patience, consistency and an adherence to scientific principles. Interventions should be based on data – not on what sounds either palatable or punitive.
Rehabilitation is not about idealism, and dismissing the work of professionals in the field based on isolated cases or personal bias is not only unfair but counterproductive. If rehabilitation were simple, every country in the world would have solved crime and addiction decades ago.
The reality is that human transformation is complex, and the road to reintegration is filled with setbacks and challenges.
No rehabilitation system is perfect, and ours is no exception. However, it represents a commitment to best practices in offender rehabilitation and reintegration, informed by decades of research in forensic and social psychology, social work, criminology and criminal justice, among other fields. Superficial social media commentary that dismisses this work ignores the efforts of professionals who dedicate their careers to breaking cycles of crime and addiction.
Public debate on crime and rehabilitation is necessary but it must be informed. Dismissing evidence-based practices with simplistic rhetoric is not just irresponsible – it is harmful.
If reducing crime and supporting both perpetrators and victims is the goal, then investment in structured, evidence-based rehabilitation is not optional; it is essential.
Real solutions require expertise, not slogans and opinions.
Gail DebonoGail Debono is senior forensic psychologist at the Correctional Services Agency and president of the Malta Chamber of Psychologists.