Cover -- Assimilation -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- Preface: Criminality as Lowest Level of Moral Competence -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Fostering Moral Competence in Social Rehabilitation -- 2.1. Legal Framework of Social Rehabilitation -- 2.1.1 The Legal Meaning of Social Rehabilitation -- 2.1.2 Legal Requirements for Social Rehabilitation -- 2.1.3. Claim and Reality of Social Rehabilitation: A Critical Appraisal -- 2.2 Traditional Approaches to Define and Measure the Success of Rehabilitation Efforts: A Critical Appraisal -- 2.2.1 Recidivism Studies and Meta-Analyses in Social Rehabilitation -- 2.2.2 Measurement of Attitudes -- 2.2.3 Competencies in Social Rehabilitation: Missing in Theory -- 2.3 Moral Competence: A New Paradigm for Social Rehabilitation -- 2.3.1 A Short History of the Concept and its Meanings -- 2.3.2 Lind's Dual-Aspects-Theory -- 2.3.3 Fostering Moral Orientations: An Aim of Social Rehabilitation? -- 2.3.4 Moral Competence is an Aim of Social Rehabilitation -- 2.3.5 The Relevance of Moral Competence for Social Rehabilitation -- 2.3.6 The Education Theory of Moral Competence Emerging from the Dual-Aspects-Theory -- 2.4. Learning Environments in Prison -- 2.4.1 Social Rehabilitation Methods in Jails and Prisons: A Lack of Opportunities for Moral Learning? -- 2.4.2 Increasing Effectiveness: From Kohlberg-Blatt to KMDD -- 2.4.3 The Konstanz Method of Dilemma Discussion (KMDD) -- 2.4.4 The Impact of Dilemma-Discussions in Prisons on Moral Orientations and Moral Competence -- 2.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses -- 2.5.1 Moral Orientations Don't Change During Imprisonment (Hypoth. 1) -- 2.5.2 Formal Education Can Stop the Regression of Moral Competence During Imprisonment (Hypothesis 2).

2.5.3 An Unfavorable Learning Environment is Responsible for the Regression of Moral Competence in the Penal System (Hypothesis 3) -- 2.5.4 KMDD Fosters Moral Competence and other Effect Criteria of Social Rehabilitation (Hypothesis 4) -- 2.5.5 Overview of Hypotheses -- 3 Methods -- 3.1 Assessment Design -- 3.2 Independent Variables -- 3.3 Dependent Variables -- 3.3.1 The Moral Competence Test Measuring Moral Competence -- 3.3.2 Testing the Validity Criteria -- 3.4 KMDD and other Programs -- 3.5 Sampling Procedure and Data Collection -- 3.6 Estimating Effect Sizes -- 3.7 Methodology and Ethics -- 4 Empirical Results -- 4.1 Moral Orientations Don't Change During Imprisonment -- 4.2 Low Moral Competence of Prisoners Decreases During Incarceration if Education is not institutionalized -- 4.3 The Regression of Moral Competence occurs when Opportunities for Responsibility-Taking and Guided Reflection are Missing -- 4.4 The KMDD Reverses the Negative Effects of Incarceration and Improves Moral Competence and Effect Criteria of Social Rehabilitation -- 4.5 Overview of Results -- 5 Discussion -- 5.1 Fostering Moral Orientations in Social Rehabilitation: Carrying Coals to Newcastle -- 5.2 Unfavorable Learning Environments Result in Regressions of Moral Competence -- 5.3 The KMDD Can Increase Moral Competence Efficiently and Sustainably in the Execution of Sentence -- 5.4 KMDD is a Respectful Start for Social Rehabilitation -- 5.5 The Limits of this Study -- 5.6 The Importance of this Study -- 5.7 Recommendations for the Rehabilitation of Offenders -- Bibliography -- Appendix -- Endnotes.