Elizabeth Ware
University of Bristol
Why Prisons Don’t Work
Retribution, reform, rehabilitation and deterrence are all misguided
justifications for the expanded use of prisons in the UK. They seek to justify
that prisons work and offenders are better off having faced or in the process
of facing a prison sentence. Yet all evidence points to the contrary. In fact,
offenders are not deterred by prison sentences, nor are they reformed or
rehabilitated after one. This is due to varying factors and issues.
Firstly, one of the main reasons that society embraces the overuse of prison is
the act of detaining those who are considered a danger to others. Michael
Howard said in 1993 that ‘prison works’ because it ensures we are protected
from murderers, muggers and rapists. Therefore by physically detaining
criminals, the crime rate will go down. However this is the first glitch in several
that helps ascertain that prisons do not work. This is because crime is cyclical,
and a new generation of offenders will replace the old. Once a generation of
offenders are locked away, another generation will emerge. It is therefore
impossible to incapacitate all offenders. Therefore prison doesn’t play a large
role in protecting the public like it claims to.
Secondly, prison is used as deterrence. By operating punitive sentences for
major and minor offences, it is assumed that offenders will be deterred from
committing the crime. It is commonly believed that an offender weighs up the
costs and benefits of committing a crime and considers the consequences of
the act. But sadly this is rarely the case. Most crime is impulsive and
opportunistic, such as a loosely held handbag or a door that looks easy to
break open. Offenders rarely think of the prison sentence they may receive,
only that they might be caught. Once their prison sentence is given, their
punishment is indelible, reducing job prospects and the opportunity to change
their life. Often, tricks of the trade can be taught in prisons from their peers, so
the offender comes out educated in the art of crime, rather than the value of
education. Furthermore prison can label a person, and this label is something
they may carry with them indefinitely. Why bother changing when everyone
just sees you as an offender? Increased community action can tackle this,
Elizabeth Ware
University of Bristol
where offenders take responsibility for their crime and learn the effects they
have on society and individuals. In the process, they can pick up invaluable
social and interactive skills that support their reintegration in society. This
cannot be achieved in prison because people act differently in prison to how
they would in the outside world. How can they be expected to change for the
better and be rehabilitated when they are in an environment that is purely
debilitating? Government justifies the overuse of prison because it believes
that offenders can be reformed and rehabilitated, and leave prison a better
person, having reflected on their crime. However, this is too often not the case
and figures prove this. 66% of those released from prison reoffend within two
years. Of more concern, 80% of young offenders released from prison
reoffend in two years. It is important to notes that these figures only account
for those who are caught. Therefore what is the point of a prison sentence, if
it fails to address the very nature of its purpose? It all seems to point towards
an expensive waste of time.
In the past decade and further back, government has been sucked into a
world of punitive populism, delivering harsh sentences to satisfy the public
and those directly and indirectly affected by criminal activity. Retribution is the
term for such action. It is the idea that wrong doers should be punished for
their wrong doings. They should ‘have a taste of their own medicine,’ in the
name of fairness. Why should a law- abiding citizen suffer while an offender
gets away ‘scot-free’? Equality seems to be the key to social order, so it is
assumed that those who commit crime should be punished, in order to even
the score. However, what is often ignored is that some offenders already start
off life in an unequal position to the law-abiding citizens. Some live in poverty,
in disadvantaged neighbourhoods with poor schools and a lack of opportunity.
Some live in abusive relationships and families that already offend, making it
the norm. Therefore punishing an offender who already started in an unequal
position in society will not cause equality. It will cause the opposite and seek
to widen the equality gap further. This is particularly affective for young
offenders. There is a reason they have turned to crime, surely these should
be addressed before their life chances are destroyed further?
Elizabeth Ware
University of Bristol
Prisons should not be abolished, they are integral part of the criminal justice
system, and they do serve a purpose in protecting the public. However in
terms of justifying prison sentences given to those who commit minor
offences, prison does not work. Crime is a social construct, and there are
reasons why certain members of the pubic turn to crime while others do not.
This is not to say that offenders should not be held accountable for their
actions and the effect they have. It means that there are more constructive
ways to dealing with those trapped in a cycle of crime. Locking away a
persistent shoplifter does not deter them from doing it again, nor does it make
then a reformed person when they leave. Instead it creates a bubble where
crime is the only thing they know, and the only thing they have been around.
There are better ways to hold offenders responsible for their crimes, that
benefit the community, the victims and society as a whole, as well as the
offender themselves. This means more community sentences.