Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society - Case Study Example

Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society Summary In March 2003 Professor Sir Anthony Bottoms was asked to participate in a research task investigating the alternatives to prison. The main objective was to provide a thorough and impartial review of the relevant empirical research. Few years later Bottoms submitted an article at the Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, briefing the data that was found. He highlighted four focal points. The first point concerns the use of prisons. Bottoms underlines that the research clearly showed that the trends in sentencing indicates an increase in English prison population which is not necessarily the result of an increase in the seriousness of the crimes. The second point he makes is about the potential for various alternatives to prison to accomplish reduction in the re-offending. Bottoms proposed rehabilitative effectiveness, but emphasized that this could not be the “magic bullet”. The third focus is on sentence management. The author points out that quality of supervisor-offender relationship is central to the effective practices, however they seem to be neglected as promoting and motivation techniques. The fourth concern is about placing a strong accent on a research about the public opinion in terms of sentencing. Offenders and crimes are a public issue and as such are pivotal for the attitudes on favour of, or against harsh punishments. In the end Bottoms implies to the book of the same name: ”Alternatives to Prison: Options for an insecure society”. He concludes that the insecure society we live in, the issue of the alternatives to prison inevitably takes political dimensions. And how the political concepts about the alternatives of incarceration will be interpreted will affect the local practices in this area. Response Paper In his article Professor Bottoms (2006) describes a research being done on alternatives to prison. The main issue that the author is addressing is what findings followed from the research task. What Bottoms (2006) argues is that there is a weak correlation between the increased incarceration rate and the reduction in crime. Bottoms (2006) presents another parallel survey, which shows the opposite statement that, the rise in the prison population in England and Wales is strongly linked to the reduction of crime – namely, more severe punishments which have deterrent effects. To my mind Bottoms’ article is an invaluable text in the field of the court system and justice as well as in criminology. The research done draws a strong indictment of the multiple shortcomings that imprisonment has. On several occasions Bottoms (2006) refers to a volume that he edited sharing the same title – Alternatives to prison: options for an insecure society. This reference to “insecure society” probes into the psychology of society and how we have become more sensitive and responsive to violent offences and the desire of community to collectively get rid of the offenders, because they seek to live in “secure” neighbourhoods. The statement that Bottoms (2006) makes is based on the statistical data that was obtained and through the surveys done. What I have noticed in this paper was that the author concentrates namely onto what this report describes. What I would propose is for the name of the article to be changed, because otherwise it misleads the general audience, who for example is willing to receive more details information on what other ways there are besides incarceration for the criminals. What needs to be clarified in the first place is the aim of the organization that initiated this research. I will outline briefly its work. The Esmee Fairbairn Foundation initiated an association called “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” which holds as its primary goal to facilitate the debate about prisons and their alternatives in the UK (RCP, n.d.). They have funded more than 50 projects so as to increase the public understanding and to raise the level of discussion. “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” put their efforts in three areas To improve the public understanding through websites, publication, conferences and to encourage politicians, journalists, magistrates to see the multiple layers of the justice system. To increase the public awareness, to examine the most effective use of prisons. The association tries to support and involve members of the public to participate in their projects in the sphere of criminal justice and penal system. The strong points in Bottoms’ paper are that is provides a concise summary of the research, outlining the main findings and examining the consequences of them. The weak points concern that the length of the text does not allow it to be more detailed especially with clarifying the main concepts about alternatives to prisons. What we know from experience is that the prison plays an important role in protecting the community against dangerous offenders and criminals. In my opinion people learnt to punish trespassers for serious crimes putting them behind the bars. But recent humanitarian organizations and human rights activists oppose that prisons have many disadvantages, especially for the minor crimes. They claim that imprisonment can harm the chances of individual to make amends and to socialize again after a long period of incarceration. Prisons can also undermine the potential of prisoner to fulfill his obligations as citizen. On one hand prisons can limit the opportunities of the individuals and hinder their social life. On the other hand they can provide decent education and training techniques for those criminals who did not have the possibility to attend regularly school, or to receive normal educational background. However, the general belief is that the prisoners leave no better equipped to fit into societal demands than when they have entered into prison. In this context Bottoms (2006) states that it is important to find effective alternatives to prison so as for wrongdoers to be punished in the community. One of the terms he uses is “rehabilitative effectiveness”. This is a community reintegration program that utilized the incarcerated offender who works as a volunteer in a human service setting. The integration of the convict I reckon passes through two stages. First he has to change his psychological attitude, and then he has to investigate his moral and ethical values so that he can be a respected individual within the community. Of greater concern to Bottoms (2006) is that politicians in England and Wales along with those who work with offenders do not initiate investigations into the long-term implications of the rising of the prison population. Bottoms (2006) substantiates this with citing some statistics drawn in 1993 when in the category of theft, only 8 % were imprisoned. In 2002 when his research was taking place the figures dramatically increased to 22 %. Bottoms (2006) particularly emphasized that theft is considered as minor case and should not end with imprisonment. A possible assumption why the incarceration rate peaked is that reforms are introduced into the criminal justice system which put greater pressure on the courts to make additional use of prisons. In this regard governments have to be encouraged to widen the scope of alternative sentencing. Verkaik (2006) is asking the rhetorical question “Is prison working”. He answers it in the same way – we simply do not know. Verkaik (2006) declares that although the prison population rose between 1993 and 2003, the figures delivered by the British Crime Survey show that the reported crime dropped significantly. One of the assumptions that Verkaik (2006) is making is that this is due to the economic conditions rather than the penal policy. On a practical level one of the major concerns for the penal reformer is how to tackle overcrowding prison. One suggestion is with community sentences. This is the recent tendency in England and Wales, Bottoms (2006) says. However one of the consequences is that the probation service personnel gets overloaded with cases with lower importance for the criminal justice system. What Bottoms (2006) do not dwell on is that community sentences help low-risk offenders to rehabilitate faster. Verkaik (2006) claims that the reconviction rates for those with community sentences are 14% lower than for those who were put in jail. For the majority of offenders who committed less dangerous crimes and were not harshly punished, it is more likely to reduce the probability to be involved in more serious criminal activities. Bottoms (2006) fails to present comparison with other countries which have an increase of the imprisonment rate too. In their article Whitley and Yip (2006) claim that the State of New York might save 130 million dollars each year in incarceration costs if they change the policy towards 10 thousand of non-violent or drug involved criminals and do not put them first into the “lieu of prison” and then into drug treatment. Whitley and Yip (2006) continue that for individuals with abusive problems the use of alternatives such as rehabilitation is just as effective as the imprisonment. RCP (2002) provides data how much it costs on average for the UK tax payer the prison costs – 27 thousand British pounds. Verkaik (2006) provides us with a brief outline to the question whether prisons cut crime. On the table with the positive answers he says “yes” because statistics show that more people are in custody and fewer crimes are committed. While in prison, criminals might have taken a note from this and would not reapply the wrongdoing. In all its forms prison seems to be the best way to please the society’s natural desire for retaliation. On the side of the negative answers “No, prisons do not cut crime, Verkaik (2006) expresses the concept that tax payers simply can not afford it, because the annual cost of an offender is twice the annual fee for Eton. Consequently, the rehabilitation process is best accomplished in the community. Bottoms (2006) concludes that the general public have to be stimulated to take less punitive attitudes towards minor criminal cases and the governments to generate more adequate social control developing such community penalties that will transmit public confidence. Bottom (2006) addresses that the alternatives to prison have inevitably a political dimension. Nevertheless, we live in a socially and civil society where we can take the alternatives to prison matter to wider discussion boards in the media and point out the controversial practices of the courts justice system. If we change the perceptions of the civil society, we can increase the likelihood of less punitive sentences. References: Bottoms, A.E., Rex, S., G. Robinson, G., (eds. 2006). Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Cullompton: Willan. Rethinking Crime and Punishment (RCP), (2002), Alternatives to Prison, retrieved on 10 October 2009, from http://www.rethinking.org.uk Rethinking Crime and Punishment (RCP), (n.d.), Exploring Alternatives to Prison Summary of RCP funded projects, retrieved on 10 October 2009, from http://www.rethinking.org.uk Verkaik, R., (2006), The big questions: what are the alternatives to prison, and do they work? Independent News and Media Limited, retrieved on 10 October 2009 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-what-are-the-alternatives-to-prison-and-do-they-work-419388.html Whitley, S., and Yip, J., (2006), Alternatives to Prison Could Save State Millions, Columbia News, retrieved on 10 October 2009 from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/06/07/prison-alternatives.html Read More