The main argument is that while the focus on relationships between families and offenders is welcome, an approach to prisoners’ families that holds them responsible for resettlement and reoffending behavior is problematic. The fundamental aim of imprisonment, as stated by the Prison Reform Trust in September 2005 in the United Kingdom, is to prevent offending and reoffending behavior. Research and a number of governmental publications have acknowledged the central role of the family in helping with prisoner resettlement in the community, which in turn reduces reoffending behavior. As such, official recognition has been given to the value of supporting family ties during imprisonment. However, for a variety of reasons including the harm to the family experienced as a result of an incarceration, there are a number of reasons why it is more appropriate to support families for their sake rather than use them as instruments of penal policy. Moreover, in some cases, family dynamics are causally related to an offender’s offending behavior, thus making family support in resettlement problematic and likely to lead to reoffending. There is also the issue to what to do with the small number of incarcerated offenders who have no family ties. Thus, the question of who is to provide support to those with no family ties becomes an important one for penal policies that rely on family ties to resettle offenders. Another problem concerns offenders with lengthy incarceration terms because the focus on resettlement potentially excludes these families, who clearly need assistance in their own right. Theoretically speaking, if penal policy leans on families for resettlement, it becomes easy for the criminal justice system to blame families for reoffending behavior, casting aside their own fault and limitations regarding rehabilitation of the offender. Notes, references