The penal code of 1930 stressed the need for individualization of sentencing and treatment of psychologically abnormal offenders. In the late 1960's, however, a human rights movement rejected the concept of 'forced treatment' and indeterminate sentences. The new law limited indeterminate sentences, except for specific dangerous offenses and types of offenders. Herstedvester's tradition of individualized, integrating growth-therapy (IIG) was disrupted by the many short-term prisoners and the new emphasis upon prisoners' rights. This article reviews the basic elements of IIG, especially the treatment role of nonmedical staff. In IIG, inmate and staff contact was cultivated and in some cases extended beyond the incarceration in order to instill optimism and counter the pessimism detrimental to the therapeutic milieu. Teaching was conducted by medical staff during weekly staff meetings and included practical application of interpersonal relations theory. Corrections officers came to understand the therapist-inmate relationship and gained insights for dealing with the inmates in their charge. It was recognized that giving officers such responsibilities often resulted in their need for additional support from the medical staff. In addition to the changed attitude toward the value of personal freedom, a new approach for evaluating dangerousness was sought. Yet, predicting dangerousness is difficult at best, even under the old criteria used at Herstedvester; case studies illustrate the dilemma. A phenomenological and dynamic definition of criminals simply as visible lawbreakers enables a realistic understanding of therapeutic problems. Because incarceration distorts an already complex problem, the criminal personality structure may never be understood. Nevertheless, a therapeutic and rehabilitative climate may help the inmate recover from the degrading experience of being labelled, sentenced, and imprisoned. Twenty-one references are listed.