The Purpose Of Imprisonment - Essay Example

THE PURPOSE OF IMPRISONMENT The Lady of with Lamp Florence Nightingale, known for her compassion for the sick and disadvantaged (Mosher, 2003), forwarded the foremost principle that a hospital should cause no harm to the sick (Liebling and Maruna, 2005). Drawing inspiration from this argument, Liebling and Maruna (2005) argued the possibility that Nightingale might have felt a certain parallelism on prisons taking the cue from her candid fascination for an inquiry into whether or not prisons cause harm to inmates. The concerns of the Lady of with Lamp may not, however, been without basis as Sykes (cited in Liebling and Maruna, 2005) bared the so- called five “pains of imprisonment” as deprivation of liberty, denial of goods and services, involuntary celibacy, loss of independence and the deprivation of security. According to Champion (2005), historical accounts from ancient civilizations like Rome and Greece pointed towards the existence of crude prison structures. For example, during the 7th century BC, Mamertine Prison was built constructed in Rome around a system of dungeons where prisoners were detained for short periods. However, extensive utilisation of prisons for longer confinement to punish criminals punishment started only during the 15th century. Basically, the period from the 5th to the 15th century which may be considered as Middle Ages century, wrongdoings and crimes are dealt with using the talion law1 (lex talionis), where retribution was handled personally by the aggrieved individuals or parties in vengeful retaliation, which sometimes involves maiming and torture. Corporal2 and capital3 punishment were also commonly meted out even for petty crimes either by religious authorities or governments. The earliest prisons during the 15th century were first established in England and Scotland and were used to incarcerate offenders for longer periods of time. Some prisons were also erected to detain even people who are just incapable of paying their debts, together with what they called as “social misfits”. Morgan (2007) reminisced that since ancient times, prisons served three purposes: punitive, custodial and coercive. Imprisonment in a medieval prison constituted punishment for petty offences (Pugh, 1970). Its main purpose was custodial or coercive in nature. Persons detained in custody consisted of the following: (1) accused persons pending trial; (2) convicted criminals awaiting execution of their sentences; and (3) banished persons en route to the colonies. The prisons’ coercive nature deals with persons with civil debt. The first correctional institutions were custodial and served only to house prisoners under guard. Needless to say that these early types of prisons were miserable since government did not bother to shell out financial budgets for outlaws. Until the 1700s, debtors’ prisons soon metamorphosed to profitable ventures like the Bridewell workhouse which doubly served as slave labor camps where prisoners were required to produce goods without remuneration. In modern times, prisons still serve these three legal functions. Suspects awaiting trial or convicted (but not yet sentenced) criminals are confined to the prison walls to ensure that judicial measures will be able to proceed and to protect parties concerned from potential harm. Individuals may be held coercively due to non-payment and/or deliberate evasion of fines set by the court. They will be held in prison as long as the debt is unpaid. But the most common function of prison nowadays focuses on its punitive function (Morgan, 2007). Pereira (2004) describes it as the way by which communities express disapproval of certain acts they deem deplorable. Meanwhile, theorists from the other side of the fence like Morris and Rothman (1996) and Sutherland, et. al. (1992) uphold the need for prisons in the light of the purposes they serve, which are primarily (1) incapacitation, (2) deterrence, (3) retribution or expiation4 and (4) reformation. Davies (2006) has a more or less similar understanding of the purposes of imprisonment : retribution, definition, protection and justification. Imprisonment though, is the most severe of punishment available, explicated Davies, who enumerated other forms of chastisement such as fines, community service and dismissals. Woodward (1962), attempting to speak for society in general, claims there is no definite idea regarding the purpose of imprisonment, having failed to draw the lines between retributory, deterrent and reformatory punishment. Incapacitation Incapacitation refers to the inability of an offender to impose harm on people outside the walls of prison. Viewed in this sense, imprisonment helps in the reduction of crime. Criminologists, however, contend that the tendency towards violence describes a life cycle of highs, plateaus and lows and that the length of the sentence of an offender may either cover the entire span or just a portion of the cycle, or sometimes only postpone the life cycle of criminal behaviour. Incapacitation by imprisonment has only enjoyed limited success (Sutherland, et. al., 1992). It works by the principle that incarcerating criminals prevent them from committing crime, therefore reducing the crime rate in a certain area. Compulsory prison terms of five years for violent crimes and three years for burglaries was shown to reduce the crime rate by as much as 80 percent (Shinnar & Shinnar 1975, cited in Sutherland et al. 1992), and long-term incarceration of convicted robbery offenders would result to a forecasted 20% decrease in robbery incidents (Greenwood 1982, cited in Sutherland et al. 1992). On the contrary, other studies reveal little change in the crime rate based on the incapacitation aspect of imprisonment. Cohen (1983) and Greenberg (1975) both stated that confining criminals reduced the crime rate for serious offences by a measly 8 percent (cited in Sutherland et al. 1992). An argument also exists wherein the incapacitating potential of imprisonment is questioned due to the experiences by penal institutions wherein the incapacitating power of imprisonment is negated. The prison, therefore, is viewed only as another venue for offenders in committing crime. Deterrence Prisons also serve the purpose of preventing and/or minimizing the effects of criminal behaviour. It has not, however, been backed up by research evidence whether or not the minor effects seen on one inmate is applicable to all offenders. Other concerns voiced out under the deterrent effect of imprisonment has something to do with the seeming impossibility of relating changes in criminal behaviour and the conditions of imprisonment, as well as the relationship between the duration of the prison sentence and crime rate. There is also the popular conviction that although prisons deter some inmates from the commission of crimes, there are cases when the conditions in prison bring out criminal behaviour the more (Morris and Rothman, 1996). In another light, Miyazawa (1995) views deterrent punishment as it works on the premise that punishing the offender will prevent other individuals from committing the same crime, or any other crime for that matter. While Sutherland, et. al. (1992) considers that the prospect of deterring crime through imprisonment might not be as high as its retributive aspect, success as a deterrent may be improved if the dreadfulness of living in prison is depicted as much worse than the crime itself. Nevertheless, the state of being incarcerated itself remains as the best factor of deterrence. Deterrence as the goal of imprisonment, on the other hand, is more intricate since three concepts are required to be dealt with independently. First is the claim that individuals who have experienced a harsh time in prison would be dissuaded from committing crime in the future. The individual’s decision to avoid crime is not based on a change of heart or the realisation of their wrongdoing. On the contrary, the decision comes from the realisation of the consequences involved in committing crime. The second concept involved is that deterrence is not aimed at the erring individual but to the members of the general populace who are contemplating on committing criminal acts. Prison should, therefore, serve as a reminder to society regarding the consequences of crime. As with the first concept, this is also based on fear, not morals. This concept serves as a middle ground for those who are too compassionate to exact vengeance but too sceptical about rehabilitation of criminals (Sykes, 2007). Golash (2005) argued that it is unlikely that imprisonment as a deterrent can cause a considerable reduction in crime. He contends that the severity of conditions in prison necessary to prevent an individual to commit crime has made the overall harm brought about by punishment to be greater than the harm it is trying to prevent. In Nazi Germany, it was observed that the crime rate was low, but it cannot be denied that Hitler’s reign of terror caused more harm than good to the German populace. In order for this concept to work, the resulting policy must produce a reasonable amount of harm prevented at minimal cost of harm to the offender. On the other hand, Sterling (1993) reasoned that imprisonment is not an effective deterrent against crime due to the nature of criminal offenders. He contended that most offenders are spontaneous thinkers, often unable to weigh out the consequences of their actions. Sykes’ third concept alleges that the deterring aspect of imprisonment is confined to incarcerating criminals in a single place, which in turn eliminates the chances of the community falling victim to crime, at least for the moment. Supporters of the deterrence aspect agree with those with a retributive outlook in terms of making prison life agonizing and harsh. Retribution or Expiation Jolley (2000) defined retribution as the meting out or receipt of what one deserves, either by divine law or human standards. This purpose of imprisonment can be traced in as early as the most primitive legal documents like that of Hammurabi5, where punishment is dealt with according to a person’s wrongdoings. The principle of retribution is also seen in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible, particularly in Exodus 20 – 23 and Leviticus 17 – 26 and the New Testament, in Matthew 5:38. Sassoon (2005) surmised that the talion could have had earned its place in discussions of contemporary law because of its citation in several books of the Bible as in Matthew 5:38-40: 38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also (Mt. 5:38-40, New King James Version). Similar references to retribution were also found in the Exodus 21:23-256, Deuteronomy, 19:217 and Leviticus 24:208. Sassoon (2005), however, engaged the talionic law in their elucidation of retribution in a different light arguing that allusion to the talion from the Holy Bible was given under the context of moderation. Morris and Rothman (1996) justified retribution as a purpose of imprisonment to prevent the wronged parties to take the law into their own hands and in the process obtain retribution. On the other hand, Coll (1999) looks at the nature of retributory punishment an attempt by society to exact vengeance on an offender. As a mode of retribution, Sutherland, et. al. (1992) believes imprisonment has exhibited a rate of success as prisoners were known to live wretched lives even in minimum security facilities. Sykes (2007) maintained that the concept of punishment as the purpose of imprisonment is that the perpetrator of a crime must suffer in return. The State, therefore, utilized the prison to exact punishment to the individual, not just by taking away his liberty, but also by subjecting him to harsh conditions throughout the duration of his sentence. Reformation The reformatory aspect of punishment, according to Telzrow (2002) was born out of the intent of rescuing first time offenders from embracing a life of crime. Reformation, as a purpose of imprisonment, was rationalised from the perspective that prison inmates must be trained or prepared to abide by the law by the time he is released back to free society. There are, however, theorists, like Morris and Rothman (1996) and Schwartz (1976) who would like to believe that reformation of a prisoner into a law abiding citizen is on a case-to-case basis. The contention was grounded on the premise that the transformation of a criminal by way of education, psychology, social adaptation or whatever means is rendered difficult by the mere fact that it is being done in a restrictive environment. Clear, Cole and Reisig (2005) traced back the inclination towards reformative imprisonment in the mid-1800s as the prison reformers became disappointed with the existing prison system. It was found that most penitentiaries have become overcrowded and have been plagued by lack of staff and financial resources – all within 40 years from being built. The deterioration of the prison system was perceived as a result of mediocre administration and corruption. The existing prisons never adopted reformation as a primary aim of the system nor it has taken steps towards rehabilitating the prisoners. Prison reformers have reiterated the importance of rehabilitating offenders so they could be reintegrated to society upon release. Imprisonment as a means of instituting reform on an offender is perceived as a popular concept. Its aim is to rehabilitate the individual by eliminating the root of crime in the individual while keeping him in the prison premises during the process to ensure success (Sykes, 2007). Cullen, et. al. (1989), however, felt that as early as the 1970s, some sectors have started doubting rehabilitation or reformation as the foremost rationale of maintaining a system of corrections. They also observed how other scholars saw the decline of the reformative function of prisons, back to back with the waning of interest pertaining to prisoner rehabilitation and the very little support for treatment as the goal of imprisonment. While so much discussion and debate has been devoted on the purpose of imprisonment, one may actually wonder if prisons and their administrators really define the purpose of the prison. Morris and Rothman (1996) mentioned an account of how Her Majesty’s Prison Service defined the Statement of Purpose in 1993 so that UK’s penal system : ‘. . . serves the public by keeping in custody those committee by the courts’. The duty of UK prisons according to the aforementioned Statement of Purpose is to ‘look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release’, which in turn in broken down into the following objectives : . . .keep prisoners in custody; maintain order, control, discipline and a safe environment; provide decent conditions for prisoners and meet their needs, including healthcare; provide positive regimes which help prisoners address their offending behaviour and allow them as full and responsible a life as possible; and help prisoners prepare for their return to the community. (Morris and Rothman, 1996, p.xi). Morris and Rothman described these goals as “clear and modest” but also made affirmations that the words are not usually put into action, claiming overwhelming evidence from various researches that no positive correlation has been observed between increasing the rate of imprisonment for various crimes and the reduction of the crime rate, even if society tend to support any form of punishment for crimes just to prevent the increase and reduce the rate of commission of crime. What is surprising from this revelation is that, in spite of the fact the criminals are incapacitated and are deterred from making any more offences while in prison, crime rates do not decrease. Hagan (1994) also shares the same belief. Schwartz (1976), therefore, argued that claims about rehabilitation being the purpose of imprisonment should cease, but qualified his argument by exhorting concerned authorities to expand and not to abandon rehabilitation programs. Pre-empting Morris and Rothman’s pessimism about the futility of rehabilitation in prison by exactly two decades, Schwartz (1976) posited that : … compulsory helping programs for convicted criminals in prisons do not overcome the social alienative effect and the other disadvantages of conviction and imprisonment. The cage is not a sensible place in which to cure the criminal, even when the medical analogy makes sense, which it rarely does… “Rehabilitation,”, whatever it means and whatever the programs that give it meaning, must cease to be claimed purpose of imprisonment. (Schwartz, 1976, p.100). On the whole, Roberts and Hough (2005) found the British society to be supportive of punishment or incapacitation as the most important purpose of imprisonment. The fact, however, that public attitude towards the objectives of imprisonment is swayed by the way a question is asked, also considers the rehabilitation function as another key purpose of prisons when allowed to provide multiple answers. Some Surprising Statistics Hagan (1994) revealed the extent of usage of imprisonment to punish transgression of criminal law in the United States as one of the highest per thousand population, if not the highest in the world. Hagan (1994), who compared imprisonment statistics between the United States and Germany, noted that Germany utilises incarceration less than the United States and insinuated that the higher usage rate in the US may be a factor for the disparity in statistics. It was also observed that responsibility for the management of prison facilities is shared among local, state and federal government, but does not have a unified statistical reporting system. In contrast, Germany utilises a centralised process for organising its crime and prison statistics. It is also interesting to note that even if the United Kingdom hovers over the top of the list among the Western European nations at 93 prisoners per 100,000 population, and the US has 504 per 100,000, while Germany has 78 per 100,000. Basing from these figures, the American prisons have comparatively 85% more inmates than Germany and 82% more than UK. What Men of the Law Have to Say About The Purpose of Imprisonment Morrison (1996) singled out that probation is the commonest sentence usually given out by American criminal court judges, which is an indication that men and women of the law do not heavily favour imprisonment as a deterrent for wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Auerhahn (2003) echoed what the American Congress declared as the purpose of imprisonment for crime – which is punishment or retribution : The purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offence with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offence under similar circumstances. (California District Attorneys’ Association, cited in Auerhahn, 2003, p.49). Meanwhile, Nott (cited in American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1974), a distinguished lawyer, announced his stand on the issue of the purpose of imprisonment: It seems safe to assert that for many years, it has been held by all intelligent people interested in penology that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is to safeguard the interests of the community by deterring others from the commission of crime (Nott, cited in American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1974, p. 21) Folks (cited in American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1974), a former President of the New York State Probation Commission, opined that our foremost reason for wanting to put criminals behind bars or to have them executed is to be protected from further crimes by this offender: The chief purpose of punishment in the mind of the average man, and therefore, of the community as a whole, in my judgment, is to prevent the commission of further crime, not by other offenders, but by the particular offender in question (Folks, cited in American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1974, p. 21). Finally, from the hanging judge himself, Isaac C. Parker, comes the grandest pronouncement about the purpose of imprisonment: The purpose of imprisonment should be “to lift the man up, to stamp out his bad nature . . . and so govern and direct him that he becomes a good citizen, of use to himself and his fellowmen” (Parker, cited in Tuller, 2001). In conclusion, the basic rights of man takes precedence over all the differing views on its objectives because, ‘It is not enough that people merely happen to be secure . . . they must have the right to security . . . and the continued enjoyment of security . . .’ (Shue, 1999). And if wrongdoers compromise the basic right of people for security, whatever be the purpose of imprisonment, society has no recourse but to go for it! References AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 1974. Administration of Justice in the United States. Ayer Publishing. AUERHAHN, K. 2003. Selective Incapacitation and Public Policy: Evaluating California’s Imprisonment Crisis. New York: State University of New York Press. CHAMPION, D. J. 2005. Prison. Microsoft® Encarta® 2006 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation. CLEAR, T., COLE, G., REISIG, M. 2005. American Corrections. USA: Thomson Wadsworth. COLL, H. Z. 1999. Capital Punishment: Arguments in favour. Gonzaga Journal of International Law. 2(2), p.3. CULLEN, F. T., LUTZE, F. E., LINK, B. G., & WOLFE, N. T. 1989. The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation. 53(33), p.33. DAVIES, M. 2006. Does Prison Work? The Politics Show. BBC One. 2006 October 22. 12.00 hrs. GOLASH, D. 2005. The Case Against Punishment: Retribution, Crime Prevention, and the Law. New York, USA: New York University Press. HAGAN, J. 1994. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. JOLLEY, M. 2000. Retribution. In: D. N. FREEDMAN. (ed). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, p.1112. LIEBLING, A. & MARUNA, S. 2005. The Effects of Imprisonment. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. MIYAZAWA, S. 1995. Crime Prevention in the Urban Community. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. MORGAN, R. 2007. Imprisonment: A brief history, the contemporary scene and likely prospects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. MORRIS, N. & ROTHMAN, D. J. 1996. The Oxford University of Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. New York: Oxford University Press. MORRISON, A. B. Fundamentals of American Law. New York: Oxford University Press. MOSHER, K. Learning about Compassion from the Life of Florence Nightingale. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. PEREIRA, C. 2004. Imprisonment for what? Pre-emptive Imprisonment Part Two. Queensland, Australia: Inside Out. POLITICS SHOW, BBC One, One, 2006 October 22. 12:00 hrs. PUGH, R.B. 1970. Imprisonment in Medieval England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ROBERTS, J. & HOUGH, M. 2005. Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill International. SASSOON, J. 2005. Ancient Laws and Modern Problems : The Balance Between Justice and a Legal System. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. SCHWARTZ, B. 1976. American Law : The Third Century : The Law Bicentennial Volume. William S. Hein Publishing. SHUE, H. 1996. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence and US Foreign Policy. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. STERLING, E. 1993. A Crime Prevention Vision. Christian Social Action. Maryland, USA: General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church. SUTHERLAND, E., CRESSEY, D.R., LUCKENBILL, D. 1992. Principles of Criminology. USA: Rowman Altamira. SYKES, G. 2007. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press. TELZROW, M. 2002. Punishment and Reform: The Wisconsin State Reformatory. Wisconsin, USA: University of Wisconsin. The Holy Bible – New King James Version. 1982. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc. TULLER, R. H. 2001. Let No Guilty Man Escape: A Judicial Biography of “Hanging Judge” Isaac C. Parker. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. WOODWARD, E.L. 1962. The Age of Reform, 1815-1870. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Read More