Treating Prison as a Deterrent - Essay Example

Threat of Prison Serve as a Deterrent Introduction Everyday crimes and committed all over across the world and need to control, curb and eradicate them arises. The society has rule and regulations both written (Constitution) and unwritten that serves to draw a line between what is accepted and what is condemned. When an individual acts in an unwanted and unapproved way, going against the set rules, regulations and laws, they are punished so as to deter a reoccurrence of the crime (Perrier and Pink, 2003:55). This is done to discourage both the offender from re-offending and any other person who could have thought of committing the same crime. Across the societies and in all nations, a prison system has been set and mandated with primary responsibility and authority of punishing these criminal offenders who have been found guilty by court. To deter is to use punishment as way of averting criminal acts. A prison is a setting where criminal offenders are contained legally as way of punishment for the crimes they have committed (Perrier and Pink, 2003:58). The question that, therefore, rises is if prisons actually serve to deter crime from happening. This essay will discuss the extent and ways in which prisons function in their attempt to reduce and deter crime and demonstrate if actually this objective is achieved. This will be based and compared to the theoretical perspectives of prison and role in crime deterrence. It is of great concern to anyone who has interest in crime prevention to critically analyse the role of prison system in curbing crime through preventing a reoccurrence and initiation of a new one. There has been a massive transformation in the recent time in the prison departments with different people expressing divergent opinions concerning the main role of a prison. Some people would argue that the prison should be a rehabilitation centre with structures and facilities that are suppose to empower the offenders and show them a new perspective in life. Other people from a different school of thought would say that availing positive and empowerment tools to offenders would be reinforcing criminal acts and, therefore, no one would learn from the mistakes. Punishment is the best way to unlearn behaviour rather that exposing a criminal to positive and enabling conditions. While it appears to be a motivation and reinforcement of a criminal behaviour, a holistic rehabilitative measure have been put in most prisons to make sure that prisoners come out of their dens afresh with clearly set goals and ambition so as to make a change in the society. This has been highly criticised by those who hold it that the favourable conditions in prisons instead of deterring crime only encourages as people knows that after all there are better facilities in prison that one could be missing at home. Inmates, who are released, therefore, engage in even worse crimes so as to go back to a ‘world’ they cherish more; it does not worry them at all to be taken back. Also it affects the interpretation of the prison by the general public; its purposes and mode of operation. When prison becomes conducive as interpreted by the public, it means that someone can just commit a crime and ‘get’ away with since prison is no any punishment. A lot of questions can be asked about crime and punishment. For example, which reason do people have to obey and abide by the law? Is it because they are under watch so that if no one could see them then they would not mind breaking laws and committing crime? Why are some people law obedient while others are not? Does punishment actually serve to prevent commission of crime and to what extent or magnitude should such punishments be administered? Suppose someone knew they can commit a criminal act such as steal a car and get away with it without being caught, would they leave it because morals do not allow? Imagine if the same crime was to be committed but on a reasonably lower magnitude like stealing a pen. Would one’s moral provision deter them even if no punishment can be foreseen? All these questions revolve around punishment effects on crime (Peace, 2005:70). Prison is set to punish and help prevent crime. It is, therefore, important to refer to the theoretical perspectives in regard to this topic so us to best understand and answer these questions that have risen. Theoretical Perspectives Theories of punishment are divided into two categories; utilitarian and retributive. Utilitarian is based on punishing a criminal with a view of preventing any reoccurrence while retributive is focused on subjective the criminal because they personally deserve to feel the consequences (Muncie, 2007:71). Deterrence Theory This theory is a utilitarian type based upon the conception that crimes are committed if people realise that punishment for the crime (if caught) will be immediate, harsh and reasonable. People, therefore, keep away from committing crimes in which they know they will suffer a lot almost immediately (Peace, 2005: 120). It is not based on the opinions that crimes will be avoided just because there are chances of getting apprehended. Instead people rationalise and way options think of the cost-benefits and then go ahead on to commit the crime if they realise that the effect of punishment is lower that the benefits they anticipate to accrue from the act. For example, a person can sit down and think about how to snatch a phone from a traveller at a crowded bus stop. One will be discouraged by the fact that if they are caught by the mob, they risk being killed. Assumptions of Deterrence Theory i) Knowledge about Penalties Deterrence theory assumes that people have sufficient knowledge about what they are engaging in and clear consequences that will follow once that crime is committed. This assumption nullifies that there are people who engage in crimes without knowing what will befall them. An instance for this assumption is in a case where a murderer before killing says they are ready to go and rot in jail. This statement demonstrates that an offender clearly knew about the penalties that would transpire once they commit the crime (Muncie, 2007:96). ii) Control of Actions This theory also assumes that we have reasonable control over our actions and our outcome can be attributed solely to our choice and nothing else. For example, an offender who beats another person in a public gathering had the option of not to but rationally went ahead to act that way. This assumption, therefore, posits that we manage ourselves and decide on what to do or what not to do (Muncie, 2007:95). ii) Logical Reasoning informs Choices made Criminal acts are assumed to be a choice made after a logical reason by people ways means and ends and deciding on what to do. This proposition holds that offenders are rational decision makers who put their intentions to thorough scrutiny as they way options and check the consequences and risks involved. This is not a process of passion but reasoning (Peace, 2005:90). For example, a policeman would not want to betray his fellow servicemen but can still turn against his colleagues and shoot them in an attempt to rob a bank so as to feed his family based on a logical conclusion he has made about where the possible chances of survival having been trained. If he realises that no matter what he does, according to this theory, he will end up being put in prison and exposed to great suffering then he may avoid committing the crime. Categories of Deterrence Specific Deterrence This a way of averting commission of crime that focuses on an individual. The offender is subject to unfavourable conditions as a way of punishment so that they can feel the negative consequences of their action in order to prevent them from repeating a similar mistake. Prisons’ conditions are never favourable and depending on the sentence made, the offender is subject to misery so that they can relate the action to the consequences experienced at the prison. Among the punishment include caning in cases of some situations depending on the judges verdict decision, relatively poor living conditions, lack of freedom to walk and associate with the outside world, hard labour among others. These are meant to make the offender feel the real negative consequences of their actions (Worrall, 2006:121). General/Indirect Deterrence In this category of deterrence, prisons and other bodies that administer punishment aims to send warnings to the public through the manner in which the handle a criminal case that crime is not tolerated. Prisons should serve as a reminder to people or potential law-breakers that crime is punishable. When an offender is frustrated and exposed to health deteriorating conditions, the society can use that as an example that if anyone else gets into the same crime then the same conditions awaits them. The purpose here is not to really change the offender being punished but to use them to condemn crime in the general space (Worrall, 2006:79). Marginal Deterrence This concept is embedded on the idea that criminals rationally evaluate conditions and the possible outcome or consequence before engaging in a criminal act., therefore,, in an attempt to deter a criminal act from occurring, prisons and other any other criminal punishment organ should punish different crimes with different intensity so that more dangerous crimes are more punished than others. This is to discourage those who would think of committing crimes. For example; someone would think of a situation like ‘why I would I slap someone if I can get the same punishment as when I break his arm? I’d rather break him completely.’’ This, therefore, makes people prefer committing serious crimes to petty crimes so that they maximize the benefits. Marginal deterrence demands that serious and consequential crimes be punished with great and significant penalties than the petty one. Other people would engage in serious crimes to go to jail than evading tax that will still take you to the same conditions (Siegel, 2006:180) Retributive Theory This theory is based upon the notion that criminals should pay dearly to their criminal acts and, therefore, they are punished not necessarily to be an example but to make the feel the real consequences of their behaviour. Since the criminal behaviour the offender engaged in puzzled and caused disharmony in the society, this theory conceptualises that offender should be punished so that they get what they actually worthy of them. Prisons, therefore, exist to provide the offenders with what they deserve after committing a crime (Muncie, 2007:101). Those who kill deserve to be subjected to certain unfavourable conditions since what they did does not allow them to continue living with people in a peaceful environment. The aim of prisons according to this theory is to ensure that people feel the wrath of breaking the law or committing a crime. The difference between retributive and utilitarian perspectives is that in retributive, focus is on the crime that an offender had committed before being caught and punishment is administered to chastise them for that while utilitarian, focus is on the future benefits that punishment can bring to the society. Retributive punishment does not care whether the punishment is given in a public view or a closed place while utilitarian one is meant to teach the mass about the consequences of criminal acts (Siegel, 2006:198). This theory proposes that punishment should be administered to people who make rational decisions to disturb the peace of the society. People who for example decides to engage in criminal acts such as raping among others once their mental status has been established to be okay should be subjected to severe pain and punishment to enable them feel the same thing those the offended felt (Thomson, 2009: 22). Moral Bases of Retribution There are two moral perspectives as far as retribution is concerned. There are those people who look at punishment as a way of revenging to the criminal. For example, when a court sentences a person to a five year jail term, then the person offended is engaging in an indirect revenge. This is because the prison serves to punish the offender on behalf of the person offended. Punishments in prisons, therefore, are a kind of vengeance. It is a tit-for-tat game which the offender plays with the offended people. Another perspective construes punishment as way of paying back the society. It is like a chance given to the offender to compensate for the criminal acts. A prison, therefore, becomes an arena to pay for the sins you committed and once you are freed you integrate back into the society when you are free of burdens. If someone goes unpunished, the assumption from this perspective is that they hugely owe the society. Prisons are established to give people second chances in life. In retributive systems, offenders may be asked for a fine in a bid to forfeit it for the criminal injustices committed failure to which they will face a jail term in prison. This is done to ensure that the offender does not get away with it and a balanced requirement is asked from the person (Siegel, 2006:201). To serve the retributive demands, the offender has to be punished in a way that matches the criminal offence they committed although this proportionality is relative. Justice systems which use retributive style of punishment make sentences to criminal offenders in critical evaluation and consideration of the severity of the criminal offence such that the offender is asked to ‘pay’ for his/ her behaviours based on the crime (Siegel, 2006:211). This done this way because of the assumption that a rational choice was made by the offender in acting in a particular manner and, therefore, if the crime is not properly punishment, the offender will find another reason to engage in it again. In this theory, the work of prisons is to deter crime through engaging in effecting the recommended scales of punishments to the offenders. That is the reason why in most prisons, there are different sections and offenders are also categorised based on the crimes they committed so that when punishments are administered, each offender receives exactly what is deserved. They offenders, therefore, will if at all they have to commit a crime try to engage in crimes that are not effective so that at least if they are to be punished they get less sever punishments since crimes like murder are meted with very severe punishments(Newman, 2009:88). There are several contrary views if the threat of being imprisoned actually deters crime. Incapacitation involves holding a criminal offender in custody or prison thereby limiting movements prevents engaging in criminal acts. This is a strategy that the prison systems use to ensure those who are caught are rendered functionless in engaging in further crimes. To some extent, their roles may be limited but this is very dangerous for criminals who are imprisoned for short terms. Through interactions with the fellow inmates, they are able to learn other criminal behaviours and skills that once they are discharged and released back into the society, they commit more high-tech that they did before. In such a dimension the prison fails to prevent crime but instead promotes it even more. Such a perspective views prison as an area where criminals are collected and trained so that they may perfect their skills even more (Espejo, 2003:44). The changes that have been witnessed in the modern prisons which aims at rehabilitating criminals paints a different image of what a prison is. Vocational training, schools, and entertainment facilities have been introduced in most prisons in an attempt to transform the prison system to empower and rehabilitate those offenders admitted has made prisons look like a refuge centre where many people who have burden may want to go. When the prison ceases to be a threat and can no longer scare people then it loses it moral compass. Children are socialised and they grow knowing that prison is just another building where people go and come back better in terms of vocational skills and personal empowerment. This, therefore, removes fear from people and crime is perceived as good thing that pays. Crime pays if one can go to prison and come back energised than before. Significantly, from another point view, the positive changes and lessons the society notices and learns from a rehabilitated individual who had lived in crime is arguably a better way to deter crime. People who are well rehabilitated will serve as a role model to the society and especially influence those intending to engage in crime to change their ways as they stand to be better as the rehabilitated person. To some extend this convinces but it posses danger when someone is rehabilitated but relapses back to old ways. Relapse becomes more dangerous and influential than the previous state. One who relapses shall have enjoyed the benefits of experiencing a good prison environment and at the same time they will preach the wrong gospel to the people outside there. They effectively suffered the consequences of their actions and still have influenced others more which become a double-tragedy. Consequently, sentences especially the long ones were meant to scare away people from engaging in criminal acts (Espejo, 2003:57). It has always been a point of debate about what lessons to the offender death sentences since a person cannot learn from their mistakes after killing. In most cases criminals consider their chances of being caught and if they realise it is low, the long sentences sometimes do not bother them. If they find no effective security apparatus exist that puts them at high chances of going to prisons then the go ahead. In such cases, prisons do not come into the criminal’s mind first. What comes into one’s mind is the chance or possibility that one can be caught or not. The outcome of the analysis, therefore, becomes the deterrent or promoting factor (Muncie, 2007:77). Conclusion The threat of prison cannot solely be attributed to deterrence of crime as it has been demonstrated that crime deterrence is not only achieved through punishment but even the existing security apparatus that denotes certainty of being caught. Also the new face of prison system that has championed for rehabilitation and personal development of offenders has changed the perception of people in interpreting prison. The prison is no longer a threat anymore in most societies. Prison, therefore, plays very minimal role in deterrence of crime. References Espejo, R. (2003) Does Capital Punishment deter crime? San Diego, Greenhaven Press. Erickson, P.E., & Erickson, S.K. (2008) Crime, punishment, and mental illness: law and the behavioural sciences in conflict, New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. Muncie, J. (2007) Criminal Justice and crime control, 2 2. London, SAGE. Newman, G.F. (2009) Crime and punishment, London, Quercus. Peace, R.A. (2005) Fyodor Dostoevskys crime and punishment a casebook, New York, Oxford University Press. Perrier, D., & Pink, J.E. (2003) From crime to punishment: an introduction to the criminal law system, Toronto, Carswell. Siegel, L.J. (2006) Criminology, Belmont, CA, Thomson/Wadsworth. Taylor, N., & Dostoyevsky, F. (2008) Crime and punishment, Harlow, Pearson Education. Thomson Gale (FIRM) (2007) Crime, prisons, and jails, Detroit, Thomson Gale. Worrall, J.L. (2006) Crime control in America: an assessment of the evidence, Boston, Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Read More