offenses. The selective incapacitation philosophy incarcerated individuals for longer periods of time than 
others. Thus, it removed their individual ability to commit crimes (in society) for greater periods of time in 
the future than others. 
There are mixed feelings about selective and collective incapacitation. Policymakers would promote their 
utility through anecdotal examples of locking certain offenders away, in order to help assuage the fear of 
crime. Others have offered that there are minimal savings at best, stating that these goals do not achieve the 
intended results as previously suggested. 
1 Future styles of selective incapacitation that have evolved include 
tighter crime control strategies that incorporate variated sentencing strategies to selectively incapacitate the 
higher rate offender. Others opt for tougher parole procedures to retain the hardened criminals longer. 
In sum, we do see a definite shift from the insignificance of collective incapacitation, to a more selective 
approach. 
In all, we are still left with the same questions, does it work? And, at what cost? Do these lengthier 
punishments for particular crimes have an effect by selectively incapacitating hardened criminals?  Are there 
other methods that seem the same or are more effective than the ones already in practice? This takes us to 
the last of the four main punishment ideologies, rehabilitation. 
1. Blokland, A.A.J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. J (2007). Selectively incapacitating frequent offenders: Costs and benefits of various penal scenarios. 
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23: 327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9033-3 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
320