Society's aims in putting people into prison have traditionally been placed into three categories: retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is often seen as the least politically mobilising of these three reasons. For many people, giving back something to an offender in terms of encouraging their rehabilitation feels like the wrong thing to do - after all, shouldn't they be paying their debt to society? Extremely high reconviction rates, though, along with a growing understanding that deterrence alone may not be enough (McGuire, 2003) have begun to convince people that rehabilitation should be a viable aim of imprisonment. Rehabilitation has now, once again, become the centre of much interest within criminal justice and much research is ongoing into the changes that can be made to encourage it.The overall effectiveness of rehabilitation within prison is often judged with reference to the reconviction statistics. Lower rates of reconviction tend to suggest that prisoners are being rehabilitated, whereas higher rates suggest the opposite. Spicer & Glicksman (2004) report UK reconviction rates in 2001 and compare them to those recorded in 1997 and 2000. These statistics show that the actual rate of reconviction within two years of release or the commencement of community service was 53.7% in 2001 and had actually decreased by around 1% from the level predicted by previous statistics. Looking more closely at those released after custodial (prison) sentences, though, the figures are higher at a 58.2% reconviction rate. That means that almost two out of every three prisoners are reconvicted of an offence within two years of being released from prison. While Spicer & Glicksman (2004) point to statistically significant reductions in the number of reconvictions, these reductions are occurring against a background of already very high figures.