Imprisonment is Expensive and Ineffective - Essay Example

Imprisonment is Expensive and Ineffective: Yet it continues to be a major feature of penal policy. It has been argued by many over many years that imprisonment is expensive and ineffective, yet it continues to be a major feature of penal policy in Britain’s justice system. Arguments against imprisonment include the idea that prison is not being used as a last resort to deter criminal bevaviour, housing prisoners is expensive, imprisonment doesn’t deter crime and it is cruel and inhumane. Despite statistics that confirm these contentions, imprisonment has experienced a growing attraction as a political response to crime. This phenomenon is seen not just in Britain but around the world as well. In the UK, the most punitive nation in Western Europe, the prison population (as of January 20, 2006) was 75,363 inmates (January 2006, 2006), a number that is still hovering near the all time high of 75,544 set in April of 2004. Statistics gathered in 2003 indicated England and Wales imprisoned 141 people per 100,000. “More than three-fifths of countries (62.5 percent) have rates below 150 per 100,000. The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population” (Walmsley, 2003). From 1993 to 2003, the prison population increased by 66 percent, 191 percent for women. The rapid growth in the prison population has not been fuelled by escalating crime rates nor by an increase in the number of offenders appearing before the courts. “Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 percent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57 percent) and violent crime falling by 43 percent during this period” (Crime, 2005). Harsher sentencing, it is argued, has resulted in our ever-increasing prison population because prison is not being used as a last resort. “Home Office data reveals that about 78 percent of people sentenced to immediate custody in 2003 had committed non-violent offences, those that did not involve violence, sex or robbery” (Why the Prison System Needs Reform, 2006). The prevalent imprisonment trend invokes a high human cost to those who caused no harm to another individual or property. The practice is also costly to taxpayers. “During 2003-2004, it cost an average of £27,320 per year to keep someone in prison. To build a new prison costs the equivalent of 2 district hospitals or 60 primary schools” (Why the Prison System Needs Reform, 2006). 73 percent of young male offenders released in 2001 were reconvicted within 2 years and 61 percent of all prisoners released in 2001 were reconvicted within two years demonstrating that prison is not working as a rehabilitation technique and doesn’t deter crime. Prison is described by its detractors as inhumane, a brutalising and damaging experience. “During 2004, 95 people killed themselves in prison service care. This included 50 people on remand and 13 women. In addition, a 14 year old boy took his own life in a Secure Training Centre in 2004. Data shows that in 2003, 30 percent of women, 65 percent of females under 21 and 6 percent of men in prison harmed themselves” (Why the Prison System Needs Reform, 2006). Data such as this has not reversed the inclination to imprison as modern methods of punishment in this way has become a way of life for the Western world. Michael Santos quotes David Garland regarding the modern use of prisons: “Whatever the reasons for their initial design; prisons and other strategies of punishment have expanded and persisted. And during the course of their evolution, most human beings have come to accept these cultural artifacts as the only acceptable response to crime. Thus, a system of punishment has become an integral part of western civilization, and many citizens believe we could have no society at all without prisons” (Santos, 2001). An increased prison population and its inherent costs have little effect on the attitudes of some. There are substantial variations in public attitudes with better educated people expressing less punitive measures than those in blue-collar occupations. Less punitive measures require offenders to pay back to victims, in a system commonly referred to as restorative justice, which shows them how to be better citizens. This system has a stronger resonance to many as an alternative form of punishment. “The public are not as punitive about crime as is often supposed. There is skepticism about prison and a great deal of support for prevention. Treating underlying problems of drug misuse and mental illness are popular ways of responding to crime. People want better alternatives to prison” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 6). Society has made astonishing industrial and technical developments over the past century, but it has only made modest progress in regard to its answer to crime. “We have changed only the details like lengths of sentence or the amount of fines that offenders must pay but few people are questioning whether there might be a more effective manner of responding to crime” (Santos, 2001). The practical characteristics of modern punishment do not reduce crime and recidivism. Punishment is a system of power and parameters within a system that are utilized to turn the people of a nation into docile and obedient drones. This methodical system of domination and of socialization is structured upon the suppression of the populous. “Human beings generally are recalcitrant, such systems require that bodies be mastered and subjected to training in order to render them useful” (Garland, 1990). Brutality is one way of controlling the body as an outside force. Governmental institutions devise techniques to master and control those bodies from the inside instead, producing citizens who habitually do what is required of them, and thereby limiting the need for external force. Foucault calls this the micro-physics of power theory which controls the individual thought processes, “penetrating the body and inserting itself into the soul. It governs the peoples actions and attitudes, their conversations, their abilities to learn, and their everyday lives. The governments power operates through the individuals rather than against them” (Garland, 1990). Offenders are so stigmatized, demoralized, and de-skilled in prison that after release they tend to re-offend, to be re-convicted and transformed into career criminals (Garland, 1990). In order to effectively control the public, the government requires an amount of understanding of the populations attitudes regarding change. Authorities need to know about the peoples way of life. “The micro-physics of power theory, therefore, requires a substantial amount of information, which Foucault calls knowledge. Knowledge of the people gives the government information that it needs in order to develop the most efficient techniques of control” (Garland, 1990). The government can better manipulate people when it knows about the people. Its relationship with the public is like a ring of control; information gives power enabling the government to acquire more information about the people, which in turn gives it more power. “The creation of crime is a useful political supremacy tactic because it works to separate crime from politics, divide the social classes, enhances the dread of imprisonment and assures the authority of the police” (Garland, 1990). Prisoners families are left to lives of destitution as a result of this system, while the system continues to produce recidivism, failing to reduce crime. The leadership in a society sets its sights on the delinquent class by turning the prison system into a political advantage. “Victims of crime are most frequently from the lower classes, and strikes against property or authority are individualized and usually relatively minor; this ensures that crime is not too much of a political liability” (Foucault, 1977). The prison system creates a well defined criminal class and by maintaining a controllable criminal class, politicians are able to justify strong police and supervision forces which can also be used for wider political purposes. Since people know that a prison term brings a stigma that remains with an individual for life, they tend to avoid taking risks with the law and ostracize those who do. The prison does not control the criminal so much as it controls the working class by creating the criminal, which is the unspoken rationale for its persistence. “Clearly, no politician will discuss this policy with constituents because it amounts to a deliberate strategy. The implication is prison is maintained because of its failures, and not in spite of them” (Foucault, 1977). Most prisoners therefore leave prison no better equipped to fit into society than when they entered it. Some leave a good deal worse off. At its worst, prison simply provides a reinforcement of delinquent attitudes and skills, and contact with potential accomplices. It almost certainly involves disruption and severance from family, friends and employment. A third of prisoners lose their homes as a result of going to prison. Almost nine in ten prisoners face unemployment on release (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 11). “The Court of Appeals has ruled that sentencing must reflect public opinion and when it decides to frame or revise a sentencing guideline, it must have regard to the need to promote confidence in the criminal justice system” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 12). Politicians are very sensitive to the perceived electoral consequences of their criminal justice policies. “So we have the extraordinary paradox that judges and magistrates have been roundly criticised for over-lenient sentencing during a period when they have been sending more defendants to prison for longer periods than at any time in the last 40 years. The increase in the prison population is not explained by any increase in sentencing powers, and I have no doubt that it is related to the pressure of public opinion” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 12). Analysis by Strathclyde University indicates that the public has lost confidence in criminal justice and want a simple and forceful solution. Public attitudes are occupied by idealistic contradictions but generally support effective prevention. However, fear produces a perceived need for punitive punishment. People tend to attach importance to a simple approach in which criminals are punished (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 23). There are obvious associations between ideological beliefs and attitudes toward punishment. “Studies have shown that highly religious people and those with a strong belief in a just world, the belief that good things will happen to good people and bad things will happen to bad people, held the most punitive attitudes to offenders” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 27). Not surprisingly, conservative beliefs, measured by agreement with statements endorsing traditional social values, are linked with harsher punitive crime prevention measures and liberal political views with more lenient attitudes (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 27). Information and subsequent discussion have been found to initiate considerable shifts in attitudes about the best ways to control crime. 35 percent of participants in a recent poll in which people were exposed to a weekend of facts and argument about crime and punishment, initially thought that sending more offenders to prison would be a very effective way of reducing crime. After the weekend, only 20 percent took this view. “While 50 percent initially thought that ‘stiffer sentences generally’ would be a very effective way of reducing crime, when followed up ten months later only 36 percent thought the same. Support for community penalties was originally quite high and remained largely unchanged. Not all people adopted more liberal views after the event; some adopted tougher views. In general, people adopted less extreme views after the event, with a net shift in a liberal direction” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 28). Those who argue for prison reform often generate information regarding the costs of incarceration. They do this with the assumption that the public will be suitably shocked to find out what it costs thinking that they will change their views about the current prison system ideology. Some insist that the lesson may be that prisoners should be kept in more inexpensive conditions while still others believe that prison is a bargain compared to the costs of repeatedly arresting and processing (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 30). The Government sends out mixed messages to the public and the courts regarding sentencing. “It wants to reduce the prison population but, at the same time, introduces policies and legislation that have the opposite effect. These often fail to take account of the research evidence, which the Government itself has sponsored” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 60). Public opinion as perceived by the mass media and politicians is presented more considerably more punitive than research shows it to be. “This should be recognised when developing policy; alarmist media reporting of high profile cases gives a distorted picture. However, it is not solely the media’s responsibility to ensure that the public knows the real facts – that rests with the Government and individual parts of the criminal justice system” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 60). Key among the proposals in the 2004 Carter Report is the creation of a new National Offender Management Service that would integrate the work of voluntary and commercial sectors in providing programmes for offenders at different stages in the criminal justice process within the Prison and Probation system. The Government has supported Carter’s proposals in an effort to curtail the rising prison population. “The Home Office estimated that unless action was taken the number locked up would reach 93,000 by 2009, with 300,000 under supervision in the community. By revitalising the use of fines, increasing the credibility of community punishment and changing sentencing practice, the numbers could be reduced: 80,000 in prison and 240,000 in the community” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 68). This number still signifies a near doubling of the prison population over 15 years. Even so, utilizing this model would reduce the current trend with the rising prison population and begin to correct the way England and Wales reacts to criminal justice. Three important developments in the framework of law, policy and practice will shape the use of prisons and alternatives to prisons in the future. “First, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains measures such as Custody Minus, Custody Plus and Intermittent Custody, which if used properly could provide alternative options for courts” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 68). This measure will limit the general growth of prison populations and minimize the troublesome influence of imprisonment on lawbreakers. These procedures along with community sentencing could be successful if sufficiently funded and managed. If it isn’t sufficiently funded and managed, it could lead to an even greater use of prison. “Second, the National Offender Management Service, which is being created to combine the work of the Prison and Probation Services, should enable a more integrated approach to meeting the needs of offenders in prison and the community” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 68). This integration offers the probability of public, voluntary and private sector organizations providing a variety of drug and alcohol treatment, mentoring programmes, job training and restorative justice programmes to which offenders might respond. Providing these and other services should lead to better results for offenders in community sentences, in prison or after release. “Third, the action plan Reducing Re-offending sets out what needs to be done at national, regional and local levels to improve the prospects of offenders leaving prison. Sixty action points have been agreed across seven ‘pathways’. These relate to: housing and accommodation, employment and education, physical and mental health, drugs and alcohol, finance benefit and debt, family ties and offender attitudes” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 68). This plan depends on partnership, planning and a system for assessment and referral of criminals to suitable services. “While national and regional plans are important, without a substantial injection of funds practical local projects that address the highly complex problems faced by people leaving prison could remain in short supply. How these developments work in practice will depend on the climate of opinion” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 68). References “Crime in England and Wales 2004-05.” (21 July 2005). Crime Reduction. Retrieved 8 February 2006 from Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. (2004). “Rethinking Crime and Punishment: The Report.” Retrieved 8 February 2006 Foucault, Michel. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon. Garland, David. (1990). Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. “January 2006.” (2006). Howard League for Penal Reform. Retrieved 8 February 2006 from Santos, Michael. (27 January, 2001). “A Complexity of the Social Contract.” Prisoner Life. Retrieved 8 February 2006 from < http://www.prisonerlife.com/s_writings6.cfm> Walmsley, Roy. (2003). “World Prison Population List.” Home Office. Retrieved 8 February 2006 from < http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf> “Why the Prison System Needs Reform.” (2006). Howard League for Penal Reform. Retrieved 8 February 2006 from Read More