Advocates of the use of meta-analysis in corrections research suggest that the technique is a powerful method for organizing existing empirical evidence, which may then be used for the development of evidence-based correctional rehabilitation policies. The set of treatment destruction techniques was sarcastically intended to provide anti-rehabilitation advocates with an arsenal for defeating the arguments of pro-treatment academics. They pointed to the findings of reviews of treatment literature as evidence of the apparent disdain of the discipline toward treatment. There is a tongue-in-cheek discussion of five methods that any anti-rehabilitation ideologue could use to damage the validity of any review of treatment literature that demonstrated positive findings. The first method involves “contaminating the treatment.” This includes suggesting that the positive effects of treatment are not due to the treatment itself, but that they may be due to treatment other than that suggested by the authors of the study. The second technique is to emphasize the criterion problem, which may involve pointing out the possibility that variables such as recidivism have been inappropriately measured in a study showing support for correctional treatment. The third technique is to appeal to common sense by inducing policy makers to recognize failure when they see it and abandon rehabilitation practices upon viewing any evidence of its ineffectiveness. The fourth method is to demonstrate that rehabilitation is based on faulty theory, referring to using terms such as medical delusion to debunk any notions of behavior modification. If all else fails, one can seek universals, which involves showing that although the treatment method was found to work with some offenders, it was ineffective with others or that it had not even been tried on everyone. Meta-analysts should make every effort possible to address these critiques regardless of their empirical merit. 80 references