These philosophers have been selected because they accept as an axiom society's obligation to offer offenders the chance to be rehabilitated. Furthermore, they both emphasize the need to develop reason and cognitive structures as a precondition for moral reasoning and behavior. For Plato, offenders have a sick soul whose parts are in perpetual discord. They must be rehabilitated for their own good, whether they consent to it or not. Rawls adopts a more democratic perspective more attuned to the gray nuances of human motivation and action. Not all offenders are unjust. Some of them have transgressed the social norms to adhere to a more developed notion of justice. Since adult criminals have liberty rights, their consent is required for rehabilitation. By contrast, because they are minors and thus not as competent as adults, juvenile offenders do not enjoy the same rights as adult criminals. As for Plato, juveniles' consent is not required for rehabilitation. The issue of whether the gradual increase of youths' decision-making ability is a sufficient criteria for granting them autonomy to decide whether rehabilitation is for their own good arises only within a Rawlsian framework. 12 references