Before forming an opinion on the role that "Rehabilitation" should play in parole hearings, HN readers should talk with (or at least read about) someone who has been through that process. Even when the intent is sincere, the implementation in American prisons can be downright draconian. "Rehabilitation" means learning what you are supposed to say/do and saying/doing it in a convincing way. Including, e.g., believing in God [1].
Rehabilitation makes sense in the abstract, but its implementation often boils down to "learn how to lie convincingly about your true beliefs", sometimes even about beliefs that are explicitly enshrined in our constitution. Which is pretty much the opposite of what we should be going for.
Now consider the case where the intent is not sincere; e.g., the case of a prison chaplain or guard who was rubbed the wrong way by a particular prisoner's personality. Rehabilitation is effusive and basically boils down to "anyone have anything negative to share with the parole board?"
And all of this without considering civil disobedience. E.g., should MLK Jr. have stayed in jail until he publicly denounced his own Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
Must drug offenders publicly profess their undying allegiance to status quo drug scheduling laws before earning their freedom?
IMO we should always allow for the possibility that criminality and morality are not intrinsically linked. And the modern practice of considering rehabilitation in parole hearings too often runs counter to tht belief.
--
[1] http://www.kcur.org/post/court-says-atheist-inmate-s-religio...