Nils Christies Dangerous States - Essay Example

Introduction The problems of crime and offending are plaguing modern societies. The enjoyment of the advantages of modern civilisation brought about by advances in modern technology and world diplomacy are being jeopardised by the rise of criminality. States are responding by adopting policies that are underpinned by tougher approach towards crimes. An offshoot of such policies is the rise of mass imprisonment and the overcrowding of prisons in many countries. The phenomenon of mass imprisonment had intrigued Nil Christie as early as the last decade of the 20th century. He called states that adopted mass imprisonment as a solution to criminality as ‘dangerous states’ because of the singularity of their perspective that tended to marginalise equitable concerns. States need to avoid mass imprisonment and limit its punitive control. Mass imprisonment does not only create dangerous states, but is ineffective in achieving its goals of reducing offending and criminality. Nils Christie’s ‘Dangerous States’ Nil Christie, a well-known Norwegian criminologist, travelled to Russia in the early 1990s and was appalled at the state of the country’s prison system. He noted that overcrowding in state prisons bred diseases, particularly tuberculosis, hunger and a substandard way of life. Christie defined ‘dangerous states’ as states whose penal law approach pose danger to their own citizens. These dangerous states, exemplified by Russia and the US, are characterised by their large penal system, rapid growth, substandard and inhuman quality of life within prisons walls, isolation and restriction from outsiders, and low degree of civility. According to Christie, “States become dangerous to their citizens by equalising all they call crimes to danger and all individuals committing them to dangerous individuals” (2004, p. 190). Christie saw the absence of discrimination in the approach to criminality as the main failing of these states. Christie proposed controlling dangerous states by taking into consideration three elements. These elements include the concept of danger, the method of prediction, and the type of sanction. Dangerous states must differentiate between offences and not bunch all of them as dangerous. In addition, states must also refrain from predicting recidivism, which defy the general view that “rare acts are difficult to predict, and the number of false positives […] will be very high” (2004, p. 190). Lastly, they must use sanctions as a way of treating or educating criminals and determine their release on the basis of the success of the treatment or education. Limiting the Punitive Control of the State Legal punishment, according to Lacey (1994), is the infliction of ‘unpleasant consequences’ on an individual or group by institutions tasked by the state with that purpose, for breaching the law. In modern societies, legal punishment usually takes the form of incarceration and in extreme cases, death penalty. Christie’s article focused entirely on the punishment of incarceration. Flew (1954) cited retribution and reform as justifications for punishment, whilst Lacey (2004) enumerated retribution, general deterrence, rehabilitation, social protection, reparation and restitution, and some mixed theories of punishment. Christie had articulated the pitfalls of being a dangerous state with his concerns centred mainly on the appalling state of prisons that reduced inmates into caged animals (2004). Other studies have not only validated Christie’s observations, but added more justifications for abandoning mass imprisonment. Studies have shown that mass imprisonment is ineffective in curbing criminality, is based on a defective utilitarian theory, perpetuates racial discrimination and institutional racism, and promotes inequality and social injustice. The rise of mass imprisonment is also exacerbated by ethical issues. Reports identify some corporations as excessively profiting from operating private prisons. This is true not only in the US, but also in Australia. Some of these corporations have becomes so profitable that they can spend millions of dollars for lobbying to urge politicians to pass policies favourable to them, such as against policies decriminalising minor drug offences (West 2013). A. Failure of Prison Use to Curb Criminality It can be observed, as Christie had observed in 1994, that the criminal justice of some western states is gravitating towards mass imprisonment. Garland (2001) wrote of the emerging phenomenon of ‘mass imprisonment’ in the US in 2001. This phenomenon, according to him, is evidenced by the sheer number of prisoners languishing in American prisons. Garland observed that the phenomenon did not result from a deliberate and conscious decision, but was an offshoot of a convergence of policies resulting in a policy of being tough on crimes. The mass imprisonment phenomenon, however, is not exclusive to the US, but is also emerging in countries such as Australia. The increasing rate of imprisonment in the country began in the last decade of the 20th century and continues to the present. In 1997, for example, the rate for imprisonment was 137 per 100,000 of the population but in 2007, that rate became 169 per 100,000 (Baldry 2008). One of the justifications for incarceration as a form of punishment is deterrence, yet statistics show that this has failed to curb criminality. For example, recidivism in Australia is pegged at 36%, which means that 36% of convicts who were released from jail come back to prison after two years of such release to serve another prison term (Baldry 2008). Clearly, the prospect of being put back in prison has not deterred these persons from committing crimes yet again. The failure of deterrence as a justification for mass imprisonment is once again illustrated in the US case. Statistics, for example, have shown that states that impose the death penalty have higher murder rates than those states that do not. The figures are consistent since 1991 up to 2011. In 1991, the figures were 9.94 as against 9.27; in 1995 the figures were 8.59 as against 6.78, and; in 2011, they were 4.89 and 4.13 (DPIC 2012). The bottom line is that imposing death penalty is failing to meet its purpose, which is to deter heinous crimes. One of the reasons for adopting a tough-on-crimes policy is public pressure. The public has a right to be angry at rising criminality because they are at the receiving end of it. The failure to deter criminality complicates daily life already fraught with the difficulty of rising prices of commodities, intense competition, and a world getting more polluted by the day. However, a research undertaken in Tasmania shows that a public educated with the way sentencing works favour leniency in sentencing than punitiveness (Harper 2012). B. The Over-Representation of Minorities and the Underprivileged in Prison Perpetuates Institutional Discrimination and Inequality Statistics from various countries show similarities in the general make-up of prison population. Prison population is mostly constituted by racial and ethnic minorities, the socially underprivileged and less-educated members of the general population. In the US, for example, Garland (2001) observed that ‘mass imprisonment’ has become a social institution for young, black men because 1 in 3 was under either penal custody or supervision. In 2000, blacks and Hispanics constituted 46% and 16%, respectively, of the prison population. In England and Wales, its prison population for 2001 had 19% for men and 25% for women coming from ethnic minorities despite the fact that ethnic minorities constituted only less than 8% of its total population (Bosworth 2004). Even in the imposition of the ultimate punishment – death penalty –, race is still at play. US statistics culled beginning 2011 show that the death penalty was mostly imposed against blacks and other ethnic minorities. Thus, of those meted with the death penalty 57.3 were blacks, 33.3% were Latinos, 8% were white, and 1.1% were Hispanics (Rogers 2011). Clearly, something is wrong and states must do something to solve the root problems plaguing minorities. Similarly, in Australia, increasing rates in imprisonment are associated with remand, women and indigenous people. The majorities of Australia’s prison populations are the illiterates, lack stable family life, had a history of illicit drug use and have a higher rate of mental health disorder. They also suffer from poorer health compared to the general population (Baldry 2008). In New South Wales, adult indigenous people are over-represented by as much as 17 times in prison more than other groups in society or 1,970.9 for every 100,000 of Indigenous population. On the other hand, the indigenous youth are over-represented by 15.6 times more than their counterparts in juvenile detention centres (Cunneen 2006). The over-representation of minorities, the underprivileged and led-educated members of society in prison points to the fact that states have failed to solve social ills. Although Bottoms (1995) characterised the 20th century criminal justice system as modern in the sense that punishment is comparatively more individualised, yet he criticised it for being hierarchical and still class-based. Baldry (2008) remarked that prison cannot reduce criminality and offending. On the contrary it further perpetuates and promotes social inequality. Rather, the state must improve education starting from the lowest levels, augmenting support for families and improving the country’s health system, all of which can help in lessening inequity in the community. On the other hand, Duff (2001) believed that there is no necessity for an alternative punishment, but to simply approach punishment as a means to achieve reparation and reconciliation. The use of anything, in this case mass punishment, is good if it achieves its goal. Punishment without utility, according to Hudson (2003) is unnecessary suffering. Basing punishment on deterrence is clearly ineffective, but basing it on just desert alone is likewise ineffective. An offender could be punished for stealing, but the likelihood of that person being recommitted is high if no one provides him any assistance for solving the reasons why he committed the crime in the first place. The likelihood of recommitting offences is the reason why states must, first and foremost, solve the problems plaguing racial and ethnic minorities. Mass imprisoning them is futile when after serving their sentence they go back again after several years. In this case, retribution alone as a goal of punishment will only institutionalise social inequality. Conclusion Mass imprisonment is aptly equated to dangerous states, as Nil Christie had observed. This is because only a state that has a singular view of crimes and a limited approach at reducing offending can allow prison conditions that dehumanise people. Even from a practical point-of-view, mass imprisonment is not ideal. First, it fails to achieve its goal of deterring crimes as evinced by recidivism rates. Second, prison population obviously favours racial and ethnic minorities, the less educated, the illiterates and other similarly situated people. Evidently, the state has failed to solve social ills that plagued society and it has chosen imprisonment as the easy way out. By relegating the solution for problems that should have uplifted the social and economic conditions of these sectors of society, the state is perpetuating racial and ethnic discrimination, and fostering inequality and injustice. Its failure to solve such problems will ultimately haunt it in the future in the form of more crimes and offending. Punishment is only effective if it meets its goal of decreasing crime. An opposite result should be a justification for rethinking it. References Baldry, E 2008, ‘The booming industry: Australian prisons,’ Submission to debate, UNSW. Bosworth M 2004, ‘Theorizing race and imprisonment: Towards a new penality,’ Critical criminology, vol. 12, pp. 221–242, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Bottoms, A 1995, ‘The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing,’ in C Clarkson and R Morgan (eds.), Politics of Sentencing reform, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp 17-49. Christie, N 2002, ‘Dangerous states,’ in M Brown and J Pratt (eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order, Routledge. pp. 181-190. Cunneen, C 2006, ‘Racism, discrimination and the over-representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system: Some conceptual and explanatory issues,’ Current issues in criminal justice, vol.17, no. 3, pp 329-246. DPIC 2012, ‘Deterrence: States without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates,’ Death Penalty Information Center, 2012, viewed 13 September 2014, The Age Archives database. Duff, 2001, ‘Consequentialists, retributivists, and abolitionists,’ in Punishment, communication, and community, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 3-34. Flew, A 1954, ‘The justification of punishment,’ Philosophy, vol. 29, no. 111, pp. 291-307, Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy. Garland, D 2001, ‘Introduction: the meaning of mass imprisonment,’ in Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Harper, D 2011, ‘Don't rush to judge on sentencing,’ The Age 18 May 2011, viewed 14 September 2014, The Age Archives database. Hudson, B 2003, Understanding justice 2/E: An introduction to ideas, perspectives and controversies in modern penal theory, McGraw-Hill International. Lacey N 2004, State punishment, London: Routledge. Rogers, S 2011, ‘Death penalty statistics from the US: which state executes the most people?,’ The Guardian, 21 September 2011, viewed 10 September 2014, The Guardian Archives database. West, A 2013, ‘US churches campaign against the growth of the private prison industry,’ Religion and Ethics Report, 6 March 2013, viewed 11 September 2014, The Religion and Ethics Report Archives database. Read More