Because rehabilitation is a very nebulous concept. Does it mean having employable skills? Being nice to a parole board? Being apologetic? The reason many in the US are very skeptical about rehabilitation is because there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates. There are far too many factors involved than whether the prisoner was treated "well" while incarcerated.

And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.

> there's not a strong link between rehabilitation efforts and recidivism rates.

[citation needed] for that claim.

I'm friends with a woman who works with prisoner rehabilitation and treatment of violent prisoners and sex offenders, and the work they do is scientifically sound, using evidence-based methods. There are very strong, proven casual links between the rehabilitation and recidivism.

Try, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sex+offender+evidence+ba...

> And if "rehabilitation" is all that's required for freedom, it shows a disconcerting lack of value for the victims of crime.

Indeed. "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." -- Lord Hewart

Have you ever seen Shawshank Redemption? Sometimes you can tell when someone is truly rehabilitated. Yes, it is a hard problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to employ a system more just for all involved.

I think basing our ideas about incarceration on a Stephen King movie and novella isn't the wisest strategy, any more than using The Silence of the Lambs would be.